F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if, being on an RN vessel releases them from USN 'dry ship' rules?
Do you actually believe that no such situation has arisen since June 1914?
More seriously: The landing-aid history started with SRVL, which the RN was exploring because of concerns that the F-35B's VL performance might be deficient under some circumstances. James Denham at NAWCAD was involved with early SRVL tests using QinetiQ's VAAC Harrier, and proposed a test to explore whether direct lift control could be exploited on non-STOVL jets (a STOVL jet has DLC inherently). Magic Carpet (it's the world's longest acronym) is a flight control and guidance software change that provides some control of vertical acceleration independent of alpha. Last I looked it was being rolled out on F/A-18 and incorporated in F-35C.
Do you actually believe that no such situation has arisen since June 1914?
More seriously: The landing-aid history started with SRVL, which the RN was exploring because of concerns that the F-35B's VL performance might be deficient under some circumstances. James Denham at NAWCAD was involved with early SRVL tests using QinetiQ's VAAC Harrier, and proposed a test to explore whether direct lift control could be exploited on non-STOVL jets (a STOVL jet has DLC inherently). Magic Carpet (it's the world's longest acronym) is a flight control and guidance software change that provides some control of vertical acceleration independent of alpha. Last I looked it was being rolled out on F/A-18 and incorporated in F-35C.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
George (and others),
Sorry if I'm repeating myself here but....
The F-35B's vertical landing performance was not, and is not, 'deficient'. It meets the KPP set down in the user's requirement, and it was a Key Performance Parameter because VL performance was a driver of the design. (The existence of this KPP was a main driver for the redesign for the aircraft after 2003 when LM allowed the weight of all three variants to get out of control).
The UK signed up to the original requirement, which used a US Mil Spec definition of a 'tropical day'. Later on (around 2003) the UK came back and asked if the VL performance could be maintained at even hotter temperatures and lower densities (this set of conditions were called the 'UK Hot Day' and reflected conditions they had experienced in the Northern Gulf in preceding years).
LM did a short study and examined the potential of an SRVL. Initial assessments showed that these could deliver a serious amount of additional 'bring back' on a 'UK Hot Day', and things moved on from there. Progress was stopped when the UK switched to cat and trap in 2010, and had to be restarted in 2012, when they changed back to STOVL. The recent articles show how far they've come, including the development of the novel 'Bedford Array' landing lights aid. The F-35B's very advanced flight controls help to deliver low workload SRVLs, but as Wizzer points out, wet or slippery decks have to be considered. Normal carrier borne stuff.
So to summarise - the UK asked for more performance over the original requirement, and the SRVL has been adopted as the way to achieve it. It's called getting as much out off the aircraft as you can. Hope this helps.
Best Regards as ever to all those developing new ways to do carrier borne aviation,
Engines
Sorry if I'm repeating myself here but....
The F-35B's vertical landing performance was not, and is not, 'deficient'. It meets the KPP set down in the user's requirement, and it was a Key Performance Parameter because VL performance was a driver of the design. (The existence of this KPP was a main driver for the redesign for the aircraft after 2003 when LM allowed the weight of all three variants to get out of control).
The UK signed up to the original requirement, which used a US Mil Spec definition of a 'tropical day'. Later on (around 2003) the UK came back and asked if the VL performance could be maintained at even hotter temperatures and lower densities (this set of conditions were called the 'UK Hot Day' and reflected conditions they had experienced in the Northern Gulf in preceding years).
LM did a short study and examined the potential of an SRVL. Initial assessments showed that these could deliver a serious amount of additional 'bring back' on a 'UK Hot Day', and things moved on from there. Progress was stopped when the UK switched to cat and trap in 2010, and had to be restarted in 2012, when they changed back to STOVL. The recent articles show how far they've come, including the development of the novel 'Bedford Array' landing lights aid. The F-35B's very advanced flight controls help to deliver low workload SRVLs, but as Wizzer points out, wet or slippery decks have to be considered. Normal carrier borne stuff.
So to summarise - the UK asked for more performance over the original requirement, and the SRVL has been adopted as the way to achieve it. It's called getting as much out off the aircraft as you can. Hope this helps.
Best Regards as ever to all those developing new ways to do carrier borne aviation,
Engines
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the clarification. That was what I meant by "under some circumstances" but I was trying to be brief and didn't intend to imply that the jet had missed its bring-back KPP (which would be a shame, considering the time and money it has cost to meet it).
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if, being on an RN vessel releases them from USN 'dry ship' rules?
https://news.usni.org/2014/07/01/hun...nd-alcohol-sea
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if, being on an RN vessel releases them from USN 'dry ship' rules?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Thanks 'Engines' always an 'old faithful' of brill info :-)
Billie Flynn Canuckian F-35 Test Pilot quoted in AirForces Monthly Magazine July 2014 which was reproducing a Canadian Skies magazine article:
US Mil Spec Hot day was 32.1C, 1013Mb. — UK Hot Day 35.5C, 992Mb.
Development of the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) Manoeuvre for the F-35B Aircraft
https://vtol.org/store/product/devel...craft-9024.cfm
Billie Flynn Canuckian F-35 Test Pilot quoted in AirForces Monthly Magazine July 2014 which was reproducing a Canadian Skies magazine article:
"...The F-35 is designed to operate from the extremes of 55C [131F] down to well below -40C [-40F]...."
Development of the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) Manoeuvre for the F-35B Aircraft
"(footnote page 4)...Ambient Temperature: 35.5ºC and Pressure: 992mb..."
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wherever sent
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approximately ten years ago there was interest in B’s being able to work on/off CVNs, hence the interest in SRVL.
At a working lunch in Ft. Worth (Rail Head BBQ, show id and get 50% off except for beer) with working class knuckle draggers a few things were discussed and brought up to the big brains at LM, NAVAIR, and PAX. The relative easy issue was the differences in LSO TTPs between the Harrier community (and the proposed B) and all the other fixed wing communities.
The part we couldn’t figure a cheap, easy or workable solution to was SRVL with the deck rigged. Under perfect-very good landings there was clearance between the nozzle and wires. Beyond the (high) probability of nozzle strikes on the wires what are/were the effects of the high heat on the wires over X time frame as the acft. rolled past.
The only solution we could come up with to operate Bs from a CVN was to re-rig and then re-rig for everyone else. Not exactly optimal for ops beyond the original concern Harrier style landing patterns being integrated into normal CVN recovery ops. Plus decreasing safety in an already very dangerous arena with increased rigging and derigging…
S/F, FOG
At a working lunch in Ft. Worth (Rail Head BBQ, show id and get 50% off except for beer) with working class knuckle draggers a few things were discussed and brought up to the big brains at LM, NAVAIR, and PAX. The relative easy issue was the differences in LSO TTPs between the Harrier community (and the proposed B) and all the other fixed wing communities.
The part we couldn’t figure a cheap, easy or workable solution to was SRVL with the deck rigged. Under perfect-very good landings there was clearance between the nozzle and wires. Beyond the (high) probability of nozzle strikes on the wires what are/were the effects of the high heat on the wires over X time frame as the acft. rolled past.
The only solution we could come up with to operate Bs from a CVN was to re-rig and then re-rig for everyone else. Not exactly optimal for ops beyond the original concern Harrier style landing patterns being integrated into normal CVN recovery ops. Plus decreasing safety in an already very dangerous arena with increased rigging and derigging…
S/F, FOG
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
And now... Something Completely Different.... 07 Mar 2017
Have Israel?s new F-35s seen combat? | Air Forces Monthly
Have Israel?s new F-35s seen combat? | Air Forces Monthly
But sandiego89, they didn't properly declare IOC! They can't have used them to drop bombs!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Israeli F-35A pilots did not fly the aircraft under training in USofA. They flew only in the Full Mission Simulator there. Once the aircraft were flown to Israel by American pilots (delayed by fog) the Israeli pilots started to fly their F-35As.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Israelis may have used the aircraft. The capabilities claimed by the program would support a fixed-target strike from a main base. However, the S-300 has been around for some time and I would expect that the IAF already had ways to deal with it.
The question is whether this operation indicates that the contractual requirements for F-35 SDD completion, including a formal IOT&E, are mere bureaucratic pettifogging or whether they actually matter. I suspect that they do, when it comes to sustained combat and training with normal contractor support.
The question is whether this operation indicates that the contractual requirements for F-35 SDD completion, including a formal IOT&E, are mere bureaucratic pettifogging or whether they actually matter. I suspect that they do, when it comes to sustained combat and training with normal contractor support.
As far as I know, I was the first (and only!) pilot to carry out an SRVL in the jumping bean. It was on 1st May 1982 and I was not sure whether I would be able to hover due to a slight difference of opinion with a Spanish-speaking gentleman with a big gun. Result - Gert big 'ole in my tail and damage to my rear end! All was well and the jet was flying again in the morning.
Nothing new etc!
Nothing new etc!
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I know, I was the first (and only!) pilot to carry out an SRVL in the jumping bean. It was on 1st May 1982 and I was not sure whether I would be able to hover due to a slight difference of opinion with a Spanish-speaking gentleman with a big gun. Result - Gert big 'ole in my tail and damage to my rear end! All was well and the jet was flying again in the morning.
Nothing new etc!
Nothing new etc!
As far as I know, I was the first (and only!) pilot to carry out an SRVL in the jumping bean
Well done by the way. We suspected it had already bin-dun but I didn't have any proper info on your event before the 2007 demo.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'NoHoverstop' I had read somewhere that the VACC Harrier only did SRVL approaches to CdeG in 2007 - I would have to go search for that quote though. Meanwhile USMC F-35B at their first Red Flag in 2016 part of summary quote from an FOI PDF available: https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...rt-of-Red.html OR http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=24330 (PDF 0.4Mb OCRed here)
“...Overall, the F-35 was far more survivable then the participating legacy aircraft. Debrief analysis of each F-35 loss was either the result of a pilot's individual employment error or the result of a scenario/airspace limitation. Due to the large number of assets involved, pilots were, limited to a 1000 foot altitude block. Block adherence and no-fly areas within the range complex prohibited pilots from positioning themselves in the most lethal or survivable position. Even with those restrictions, it was extremely difficult for the opposing red force to acquire and successfully engage F-35s. As the squadron commander, I am extremely proud at the humble professionalism we brought to this exercise. Our maintenance department worked hard and delivered combat capable aircraft !or every vul. Our pilots seamlessly integrated with other aircrew and cyber/space operators. We capitalized on our opportunities to lead the events as Mission Commanders, Package Commanders, and Tactical Mentors. Most notably, our pilots were the Mission Commanders for the event with the most capable enemy threat laydown as well as the VIP event with the Secretary of the Air Force and USAF Chief of Staff present. This was the first Red Flag exercise with F-35 participation and the USMC lead [led?] from the front....”
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
One presumes they picked the most serviceable and reliable they had...
....VMFA-121 also left a seventh jet behind at its base in Arizona due to a malfunctioning integrated power package (IPP), which provides electrical power for the aircraft, Bardo noted. In all, fewer than two of the squadron’s fighters— 23 percent—were “full mission capable” at any one time, on average. Crews kept approximately 53 percent of the six planes “partial mission capable” throughout Red Flag 16-3. “Notably, these numbers only reflect the six aircraft deployed to Nellis AFB,” Bardo stressed.....