F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Maus, as far as I know, there was no requirement for F-35B to have a thermal burden, 'no greater than that of AV-8 or MV-22'. The USMC's total commitment to F-35B therefore attracts an additional cost of bringing other USMC assets (MOB, LHA etc) up to whatever standards the the jet requires to effectively operate.
Interesting question. It would be very surprising (and an important omission) if the JORD didn't say that the aircraft should be Wasp-compatible, encompassing everything that such a requirement implies. (It wouldn't have to be rated against the AV-8 or anything else.)
It would have been another serious omission to fail to define the composition, as well as the size, of a STOVL runway on land. 3000-foot runways, even in the U.S. and Europe, generally ain't made of MIL-SPEC concrete.
Interesting question. It would be very surprising (and an important omission) if the JORD didn't say that the aircraft should be Wasp-compatible, encompassing everything that such a requirement implies. (It wouldn't have to be rated against the AV-8 or anything else.)
It would have been another serious omission to fail to define the composition, as well as the size, of a STOVL runway on land. 3000-foot runways, even in the U.S. and Europe, generally ain't made of MIL-SPEC concrete.
It does seem that the effects on steel deck and concrete spalling have been higher than anticipated with the B. Perhaps the velocities and temperatures were underappreciated. Apparently VTOL in the grocery store parking lot as per some of the early 1970's Harrier wishful marketing will not be part of the B austere field plan.... 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I can help a little here on F-35B exhaust effects. (I've posted this stuff a few times before, but it's clearly an issue that generates a lot of interest. Please forgive the repetition.)
On requirements issues as raised by LO and others,the JSF Joint Operations Requirements Document (JORD) had a set of high level statements on F-35B/C ship suitability and basing. The basic format was:
'The F-35(B or C) shall be compatible with and operationally supportable from (LHD or CVN) class ships as described in annex 'X''.
The JORD contained detailed Annexes on the ship designs, as well as the surfaces it was required to work from. From a basing perspective, the requirements were, as far as we were concerned at the time, pretty comprehensive. Certainly good enough to form the basis for building the far more detailed design requirements.
Everybody knew that the F-35B was going to pose a bigger challenge for flight deck and runway surfaces. Basic physics told us that. So the program knew that understanding and quantifying the external environment (noise, velocity, pressure, temperature) generated by the aircraft was essential. That's why the program carried out the most detailed set of tests and trials ever conducted for a powered lift aircraft. Three separate test programmes looked at how the hot gases flowed around the airframe, their effect on the airframe itself, and also the effect of the hot exhaust on a range of surfaces, including Mil Spec concrete asphalt, AM-2 matting and flight deck coatings. The results from these were immediately passed to Navair and other agencies to inform ship integration trials. A was certainly talking to B, at least from where I stood.
The results showed that deck coating erosion was manageable but significant. The arrival of the 'Thermion' coating was very timely, and it was added to the surfaces tested. The reason it performs well ( as I understand it) is the fact that it forms an exceptionally close bond with the surface it is applied to. The coating's material also has a coefficient of expansion closer to deck steel than normal paints.
These mean that it's less likely to crack and spall off. Again, I stress that this was subjected to literally hundreds of hours of testing.
I understand that there have been some issues with deck buckling - we experienced plenty of those with Sea Harriers on UK ships. The USN solution appears to be similar - addition of extra stiffening beams under the deck to support the deck plates. Not unexpected.
It's probably important to realise that integrating any new aircraft with an existing ship will require some level of modification. The integration challenge is harder for a ship than for a land base, mainly because space is constrained. Stuff like electronic antennae, weapons, people, ground equipment etc., is always going to be closer to an operating aircraft on board than ashore. Space for support facilities is also much harder to come by.
The customer understood that, and also expected to have to make ship modifications. However, the JORD also included very tight requirements for F-35B logistics footprint, to reduce the impact as far as possible.
Yes, the USN have carried out ship modifications for F-35B. But these were planned in with existing ships programmes, as far as I know.
To answer LO's point about STOL strips - yes, the JORD specified some surfaces. However, the USMC intention was always to expand the ability of the B to operate from as man types of surface as possible. As far as I know, STOL operations to concrete and asphalt do not pose any major exhaust/surface issues, as long as direct hot exhaust impingement (I.e. 90 degrees) is avoided.
I do have to admit to being ever so slightly miffed when some posters seem to assume that the people actually doing the work on the F-35 programme must have made 'serious omissions' or that 'A wasn't talking to B'.
What's happening is that a seriously talented and hard working international team are doing their damnedest to deliver a major step forward in combat capability. And have been doing so from the start. They are not numpties. This powered lift stuff is seriously hard. They know what they are doing. A little respect might, once in a while, be offered.
That said, this is a free forum, opinions can ( and should) be thrown out there. I hope that this post helps inform those opinions.
Best regards as ever to those working the sums and shaping the metal,
Engines
On requirements issues as raised by LO and others,the JSF Joint Operations Requirements Document (JORD) had a set of high level statements on F-35B/C ship suitability and basing. The basic format was:
'The F-35(B or C) shall be compatible with and operationally supportable from (LHD or CVN) class ships as described in annex 'X''.
The JORD contained detailed Annexes on the ship designs, as well as the surfaces it was required to work from. From a basing perspective, the requirements were, as far as we were concerned at the time, pretty comprehensive. Certainly good enough to form the basis for building the far more detailed design requirements.
Everybody knew that the F-35B was going to pose a bigger challenge for flight deck and runway surfaces. Basic physics told us that. So the program knew that understanding and quantifying the external environment (noise, velocity, pressure, temperature) generated by the aircraft was essential. That's why the program carried out the most detailed set of tests and trials ever conducted for a powered lift aircraft. Three separate test programmes looked at how the hot gases flowed around the airframe, their effect on the airframe itself, and also the effect of the hot exhaust on a range of surfaces, including Mil Spec concrete asphalt, AM-2 matting and flight deck coatings. The results from these were immediately passed to Navair and other agencies to inform ship integration trials. A was certainly talking to B, at least from where I stood.
The results showed that deck coating erosion was manageable but significant. The arrival of the 'Thermion' coating was very timely, and it was added to the surfaces tested. The reason it performs well ( as I understand it) is the fact that it forms an exceptionally close bond with the surface it is applied to. The coating's material also has a coefficient of expansion closer to deck steel than normal paints.
These mean that it's less likely to crack and spall off. Again, I stress that this was subjected to literally hundreds of hours of testing.
I understand that there have been some issues with deck buckling - we experienced plenty of those with Sea Harriers on UK ships. The USN solution appears to be similar - addition of extra stiffening beams under the deck to support the deck plates. Not unexpected.
It's probably important to realise that integrating any new aircraft with an existing ship will require some level of modification. The integration challenge is harder for a ship than for a land base, mainly because space is constrained. Stuff like electronic antennae, weapons, people, ground equipment etc., is always going to be closer to an operating aircraft on board than ashore. Space for support facilities is also much harder to come by.
The customer understood that, and also expected to have to make ship modifications. However, the JORD also included very tight requirements for F-35B logistics footprint, to reduce the impact as far as possible.
Yes, the USN have carried out ship modifications for F-35B. But these were planned in with existing ships programmes, as far as I know.
To answer LO's point about STOL strips - yes, the JORD specified some surfaces. However, the USMC intention was always to expand the ability of the B to operate from as man types of surface as possible. As far as I know, STOL operations to concrete and asphalt do not pose any major exhaust/surface issues, as long as direct hot exhaust impingement (I.e. 90 degrees) is avoided.
I do have to admit to being ever so slightly miffed when some posters seem to assume that the people actually doing the work on the F-35 programme must have made 'serious omissions' or that 'A wasn't talking to B'.
What's happening is that a seriously talented and hard working international team are doing their damnedest to deliver a major step forward in combat capability. And have been doing so from the start. They are not numpties. This powered lift stuff is seriously hard. They know what they are doing. A little respect might, once in a while, be offered.
That said, this is a free forum, opinions can ( and should) be thrown out there. I hope that this post helps inform those opinions.
Best regards as ever to those working the sums and shaping the metal,
Engines
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, Ken, you've had nearly 24 hours to back up or retract this claim, and now I'm calling 
on it.
I'm 99.999 per cent certain that nobody said it here; I'm pretty sure that nobody has said it in print anywhere.
on it. I'm 99.999 per cent certain that nobody said it here; I'm pretty sure that nobody has said it in print anywhere.
As for my claim, someone posted a link right here in the thread to a Pax River Test community video not that long ago. The orthodox berated that video as yet more F-35 propaganda. One of the more devout in the orthodox camp claimed the folks in the video were bought and paid for stooges of LM. Never mind that the video was about the accomplishments of the test folks, NOT about the airplane!! Given what they have accomplished, they were justified in thumping their chests at least a little.
I will attempt to find the post that included that link and the inflammatory post that levied the charge against the Pax River test folks. I'm certain I'm not the only one who remembers that link and that reply to it. Maybe someone can help locate it.
What's happening is that a seriously talented and hard working international team are doing their damnedest to deliver a major step forward in combat capability. And have been doing so from the start. They are not numpties. This powered lift stuff is seriously hard. They know what they are doing. A little respect might, once in a while, be offered.
I will attempt to find the post that included that link and the inflammatory post that levied the charge against the Pax River test folks. I'm certain I'm not the only one who remembers that link and that reply to it. Maybe someone can help locate it.
Errm, no, it wasn't "Pax River test folks", it was, according to you, "the entire USN test pilot community". So that's a pretty wide-ranging, damning charge that now you can't find evidence for.
And again, per earlier posts, the only person I can recall leveling charges of self-interest against a so-called "test community" was a paid agent of LM.
Errm, no, it wasn't "Pax River test folks", it was, according to you, "the entire USN test pilot community". So that's a pretty wide-ranging, damning charge that now you can't find evidence for.
And again, per earlier posts, the only person I can recall leveling charges of self-interest against a so-called "test community" was a paid agent of LM.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T43562,
Thanks for responding.
Yes, my bad there - it's quite possible for good clever hard working types to fail if the project is too hard. Sorry for not covering that angle, and thanks for pointing it out.
However, what does wring my withers ever so slightly is when people assert that the F-35 team have been stupid, or omitted obvious aspects of developing a powered lift aircraft. There I would disagree.
For what it's worth ( not much as I'm now retired and not doing it for real) my opinion (just opinion) is that the F-35 is an outstanding achievement and will take air combat a long way forward. It's not without faults, like any other aircraft. Others can and will disagree. That's all to the good.
Best regards as ever to those who deserve a little respect,
Engines
Thanks for responding.
Yes, my bad there - it's quite possible for good clever hard working types to fail if the project is too hard. Sorry for not covering that angle, and thanks for pointing it out.
However, what does wring my withers ever so slightly is when people assert that the F-35 team have been stupid, or omitted obvious aspects of developing a powered lift aircraft. There I would disagree.
For what it's worth ( not much as I'm now retired and not doing it for real) my opinion (just opinion) is that the F-35 is an outstanding achievement and will take air combat a long way forward. It's not without faults, like any other aircraft. Others can and will disagree. That's all to the good.
Best regards as ever to those who deserve a little respect,
Engines
Originally Posted by Engines
..Best regards as ever to those who deserve a little respect,
Engines
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errm, no, it wasn't "Pax River test folks", it was, according to you, "the entire USN test pilot community". So that's a pretty wide-ranging, damning charge that now you can't find evidence for.
Just for a change, some news that does not lend itself to controversy from any angle.
Netherlands Tanker Cleared To Refuel F-35
Interestingly
I wonder when/if the folks resident in the Marham area will be given a similar comparison?
Netherlands Tanker Cleared To Refuel F-35
Interestingly
F-35s to the Netherlands in May, where the aircraft will perform a series of noise perception flights to give local communities living near the RNLAF’s two main fighter bases, Leeuwarden and Volkel, an idea of the noise levels produced by the F-35 in comparison to the F-16 Fighting Falcon that it will replace.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for a change, some news that does not lend itself to controversy from any angle.
Netherlands Tanker Cleared To Refuel F-35
Netherlands Tanker Cleared To Refuel F-35
Well, the final paragraph in the article does state:-
So the KDC-10s role in this respect will not be long-term.
The KDC-10 will play a limited role in refueling the Dutch F-35s, however, as the Netherlands is involved in a multinational tanker program with Poland and Norway to purchase Airbus A330 Multi-Role Tanker-Transports. These will replace the two KDC-10s currently in service.
Suspicion breeds confidence
After what seems like a lifetime of waiting I'm going to see the F-35b fly and get up close in Fort Lauderdale next month. This beastie of showing worrying signs of becoming reality! 
KenV You underestimate the folks in this forum. The A330MRTT/Voyager is (allegedly) a much better tanker than those Dutch KDC-10s can ever hope to be. And don't even think about the KC-46. There's plenty of controversy to go around.
Please Ken, I don't think that anyone is going to argue that the KDC-10's that were bought over 24 years ago second hand from an airline are "better" than the MRTT or KC-46 that are still fresh from the factory. The KDC-10's seem to have been quite useful over the years, and the KC-10/KDC-10 were doing boom equipped multi role tanker/transport operations long before it was cool to do so. Not bad for an airframe that was first designed in the late 1960's and later developed into a tanker/transport with the KC-10 some 40 years ago. Lynham lad posted a nice link relevant to the F-35 story- no need to bash the KDC-10 by assuming that others would have some controversy over it...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While it's easy to heap criticism on the F-35B, it would be nice if people also appreciated just how difficult a task the F-35B's design presented. The shaft driven lift fan concept developed by Dr. Bevilaqua was a very impressive piece of engineering. And the fact that LM/Allison/R-R/P&W got it to work was also impressive. Do people realize just how difficult it is to design a 30,000hp carbon-carbon clutch reliable and light enough for use on a fighter aircraft?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I have the utmost respect t for those working on the project, and I am sure it is a marvel of engineering. But at what cost?
If I had a comparison to bring to mind it would be the Space Shuttle. Another marvel of engineering which did many magnificanr things. However, it was intended as a .space "truck" which would fly with weekly turnarounds and dramatically reduce the cost of access to orbit rendering it routine.
In the event it provided inordinately complex, slow and expensive to turnaround and, in hindsight, brought the US/NASA manned space programme to its knees.
If I had a comparison to bring to mind it would be the Space Shuttle. Another marvel of engineering which did many magnificanr things. However, it was intended as a .space "truck" which would fly with weekly turnarounds and dramatically reduce the cost of access to orbit rendering it routine.
In the event it provided inordinately complex, slow and expensive to turnaround and, in hindsight, brought the US/NASA manned space programme to its knees.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC, in my opinion, you've just perfectly described the F-22 rather than the F-35. The per-airframe expense, though arguably worth it for the exceptional capability it brings in the Air Dominance role, is much more than the metric that F-35 has ever had in mind. During this period of concurrency it is genuinely difficult to predict where sustainment cost and per-airframe cost for F-35 will end up. I personally predict it to be above what is hoped to bottom out at, simply because that is what always happens for pretty much every aircraft program. I'm not talking about Total Program cost here because the delays and all have blown that figure way out of the water.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please Ken, I don't think that anyone is going to argue that the KDC-10's that were bought over 24 years ago second hand from an airline are "better" than the MRTT or KC-46 that are still fresh from the factory.
....no need to bash the KDC-10....