F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,583
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Cool THERMION
At the risk of being boring heheh... Here is some more old THERMIONIC news & cool environment hoohaa.
Marine Corps demonstrates F-35B at sea 18 Oct 2011 Dave Majumdar
Marine Corps demonstrates F-35B at sea - Marine Corps News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Marine Corps Times
"...The team started off the flights by using the flight envelop cleared for the AV-8B Harrier as a starting point before expanding into new territory, Cordell said. From that initial envelope, the testers expanded it up to 30 knots of headwind and down to 10 knots of headwind. They also flew the jet with a 15-degree crosswind....
...Cordell [Col. Roger Cordell, naval F-35 test director] said that one piece of good news is that the “outflow” from the jet’s exhaust while hovering is less intense than expected. “It’s counterintuitive, but the jet has a less harsh environment hovering at 40 feet than it does at 100 feet,” he said. Engineering models had predicted the outcome, but skeptics — Cordell included — had doubted those conclusions.
The hazard zone around the jet therefore has shrunk to about the same size as that of a Harrier, he said.
Similarly, the “outwash” on take-off is far less harsh than anticipated, Cordell said....
...NAVSEA also used the F-35B trials onboard the Wasp to evaluate some non-skid material on one of the deck spots on the giant vessel, Kalnajs said. The new material [THERMION] was tested on a 90 square foot spot, said Navy Capt. Brenda Holdener, commander of the Wasp.
The rest of the flight deck is covered in standard material, however parts of it look different because it is newer, she said. Observers had questioned why portions of the Wasp’s flight deck had a different hue than other parts of the deck surface.
Non-skid materials have and continue to be a vexing problem for the Navy, breaking down after only six or seven months, Kalnajs said. He said the Navy hopes the newer material being evaluated will last for years at a time...."
Marine Corps demonstrates F-35B at sea 18 Oct 2011 Dave Majumdar
Marine Corps demonstrates F-35B at sea - Marine Corps News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Marine Corps Times
"...The team started off the flights by using the flight envelop cleared for the AV-8B Harrier as a starting point before expanding into new territory, Cordell said. From that initial envelope, the testers expanded it up to 30 knots of headwind and down to 10 knots of headwind. They also flew the jet with a 15-degree crosswind....
...Cordell [Col. Roger Cordell, naval F-35 test director] said that one piece of good news is that the “outflow” from the jet’s exhaust while hovering is less intense than expected. “It’s counterintuitive, but the jet has a less harsh environment hovering at 40 feet than it does at 100 feet,” he said. Engineering models had predicted the outcome, but skeptics — Cordell included — had doubted those conclusions.
The hazard zone around the jet therefore has shrunk to about the same size as that of a Harrier, he said.
Similarly, the “outwash” on take-off is far less harsh than anticipated, Cordell said....
...NAVSEA also used the F-35B trials onboard the Wasp to evaluate some non-skid material on one of the deck spots on the giant vessel, Kalnajs said. The new material [THERMION] was tested on a 90 square foot spot, said Navy Capt. Brenda Holdener, commander of the Wasp.
The rest of the flight deck is covered in standard material, however parts of it look different because it is newer, she said. Observers had questioned why portions of the Wasp’s flight deck had a different hue than other parts of the deck surface.
Non-skid materials have and continue to be a vexing problem for the Navy, breaking down after only six or seven months, Kalnajs said. He said the Navy hopes the newer material being evaluated will last for years at a time...."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 1st Apr 2013 at 00:13. Reason: spellin'
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,583
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
F-35B will land as a conventional aircraft most of the time
For 'Milo Minderbinder' earlier "Catch 22" F-35B Runny or VL question:
"I'm still trying to get my head round something. Is it the current belief that the F-35B does or doesn't cause scadding and spalling to conventional runway surfaces? Because if it does cause that, then we won't be able to deploy them overseas, other than on the ships, or a surface prepared in advance. Makes a nonsense of "rapid deployment"."
Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical By Philip Ewing 07 June 2011
Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won
“A Marine Corps photo set this week shows a squadron of veteran AV-8B Harriers at work in Afghanistan supporting troops on the ground, and it brought to mind one of the capabilities the Marines’ F-35B Lightning II will have that the Harrier doesn’t. Everybody knows that the B can “transform,” like a Decepticon, for short takeoffs and vertical landings on Navy amphibious ships at sea. But unlike a Harrier, the B also can land like a conventional airplane, said Lockheed Martin vice president Steve O’Bryan at the company’s big media day last month.
So what, you might say. Well, the Harrier doesn’t land conventionally: Every time it comes back, even to a ground base, it needs to do a vertical landing or a rolling vertical landing, O’Bryan said, burning fuel and working its jet nozzles more or less the same way. But if a Lightning II pilot wants to, she’ll be able to land down a runway like a normal fighter jet, without engaging the lift fan or all those other ports & hatches & bells & whistles.
If many — or most — of the flights that a fighter makes over its life are not under operational circumstances, because pilots are training or ferrying their jets, that could mean that a typical B won’t need its vertical landing capability most of the time.
“I don’t want to speak for the Marine Corps, but as we do analysis for the STOVL variant, [we think] most of the landings will be conventional landings — you can come back and land on a normal 8,000-foot airstrip without stressing all those components,” O’Bryan said. “Of course it’s up to the operational units, but why would I stress those if I don’t have to? ...That is an option that’s not available on the current generation of STOVL airplanes.”
_______________
For 'glad rag' - what is not to like?
F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts December 11, 2012
http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/20...er-11-2012.pdf
“On November 30, BF-1 accomplished the longest duration F-35 hover at 10 mins.
On December 3, BF-1 accomplished its 200th vertical landing at PAX & completed maximum weight hover, vertical landing & 90 degree translation on Dec 6.
On December 6, BF-4 flew the 1st STOVL mode night ops, including night hover.”
_____________________
An Update from Eglin on the Arrival of the F-35 17 Jul 2011
An Update from Eglin on the Arrival of the F-35 | SLDInfo
SLD: As a Harrier pilot, could you comment on the potential arrival of the F-35Bs? | 17 Jul 2011 [at Eglin AFB]
Col. Tomassetti: It is ultimately disappointing constantly to see in the news all of the things that the F-35B hasn’t been able to achieve yet or can’t do & people completely missing what we’ve already achieved.
The fact is that we have a STOVL airplane that every pilot who has flown it says that it’s easy to fly. In 60 years of trying to build jet airplanes and do this, we’ve never ever been there before. We’ve never had a STOVL airplane that was as full spectrum capable as it’s conventional counterparts. We’ve never done that before in 60 years of trying.
It’s an amazing engineering achievement; [what] we’ve already accomplished is completely being missed by some observers.”
An Update from Eglin on the Arrival of the F-35 | SLDInfo [Colonel ‘Art’ Tomassetti [USMC] flew the X-35B on the STO - Supersonic - VL mission a decade ago, 30 July 2001. Now he is vice-commander 33rd Fighter Wing Eglin. http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/news/archive/55.html]
"I'm still trying to get my head round something. Is it the current belief that the F-35B does or doesn't cause scadding and spalling to conventional runway surfaces? Because if it does cause that, then we won't be able to deploy them overseas, other than on the ships, or a surface prepared in advance. Makes a nonsense of "rapid deployment"."
Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical By Philip Ewing 07 June 2011
Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won
“A Marine Corps photo set this week shows a squadron of veteran AV-8B Harriers at work in Afghanistan supporting troops on the ground, and it brought to mind one of the capabilities the Marines’ F-35B Lightning II will have that the Harrier doesn’t. Everybody knows that the B can “transform,” like a Decepticon, for short takeoffs and vertical landings on Navy amphibious ships at sea. But unlike a Harrier, the B also can land like a conventional airplane, said Lockheed Martin vice president Steve O’Bryan at the company’s big media day last month.
So what, you might say. Well, the Harrier doesn’t land conventionally: Every time it comes back, even to a ground base, it needs to do a vertical landing or a rolling vertical landing, O’Bryan said, burning fuel and working its jet nozzles more or less the same way. But if a Lightning II pilot wants to, she’ll be able to land down a runway like a normal fighter jet, without engaging the lift fan or all those other ports & hatches & bells & whistles.
If many — or most — of the flights that a fighter makes over its life are not under operational circumstances, because pilots are training or ferrying their jets, that could mean that a typical B won’t need its vertical landing capability most of the time.
“I don’t want to speak for the Marine Corps, but as we do analysis for the STOVL variant, [we think] most of the landings will be conventional landings — you can come back and land on a normal 8,000-foot airstrip without stressing all those components,” O’Bryan said. “Of course it’s up to the operational units, but why would I stress those if I don’t have to? ...That is an option that’s not available on the current generation of STOVL airplanes.”
_______________
For 'glad rag' - what is not to like?
F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts December 11, 2012
http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/20...er-11-2012.pdf
“On November 30, BF-1 accomplished the longest duration F-35 hover at 10 mins.
On December 3, BF-1 accomplished its 200th vertical landing at PAX & completed maximum weight hover, vertical landing & 90 degree translation on Dec 6.
On December 6, BF-4 flew the 1st STOVL mode night ops, including night hover.”
_____________________
An Update from Eglin on the Arrival of the F-35 17 Jul 2011
An Update from Eglin on the Arrival of the F-35 | SLDInfo
SLD: As a Harrier pilot, could you comment on the potential arrival of the F-35Bs? | 17 Jul 2011 [at Eglin AFB]
Col. Tomassetti: It is ultimately disappointing constantly to see in the news all of the things that the F-35B hasn’t been able to achieve yet or can’t do & people completely missing what we’ve already achieved.
The fact is that we have a STOVL airplane that every pilot who has flown it says that it’s easy to fly. In 60 years of trying to build jet airplanes and do this, we’ve never ever been there before. We’ve never had a STOVL airplane that was as full spectrum capable as it’s conventional counterparts. We’ve never done that before in 60 years of trying.
It’s an amazing engineering achievement; [what] we’ve already accomplished is completely being missed by some observers.”
An Update from Eglin on the Arrival of the F-35 | SLDInfo [Colonel ‘Art’ Tomassetti [USMC] flew the X-35B on the STO - Supersonic - VL mission a decade ago, 30 July 2001. Now he is vice-commander 33rd Fighter Wing Eglin. http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/news/archive/55.html]
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 1st Apr 2013 at 17:53. Reason: Added Minderbinder Question + Highlight 'nozzle text'
...It would be a USMC conop that it can't, rather than it really can't
Note that our resident shills are engaged in the time-honored Internet tactic of drowning the discussion with repetition and irrelevant data of dubious accuracy.
Nobody here is denying that the JSF has a cool(er) front exhaust that keeps HGI in check.
Nobody's saying that AM-2 has not often been used to permit jet ops on poor surfaces. That's what it's for. Protecting good surfaces on a CONUS base is something different.
Nobody is saying that heat/blast is an unfixable problem for carrier deck operations (although it is true that the USN was concerned about fatigue).
And no informed critic that I know of has ever said that the F-35B will "melt decks". That's a silly and dishonest straw-man that the shills raise all the time. Spaz, can you quote an informed critic (that is, not some TV reporter) saying anything of the kind?
And I count $XX million Navy contracts as more convincing than anecdotes provided by phony think-tanks on the LockMart payroll...
WhitePapers | SLDInfo
The hard facts remain that the B appears to have (among its other limitations) a real issue with VL on normal surfaces, and that nobody has shown that "creeping vertical" will solve the problem, particularly on come-as-you-are forward strips. Moreover, the B is 3000 pounds heavier than the A, which already lands pretty hot, so conventional probably means a fast landing.
Nobody here is denying that the JSF has a cool(er) front exhaust that keeps HGI in check.
Nobody's saying that AM-2 has not often been used to permit jet ops on poor surfaces. That's what it's for. Protecting good surfaces on a CONUS base is something different.
Nobody is saying that heat/blast is an unfixable problem for carrier deck operations (although it is true that the USN was concerned about fatigue).
And no informed critic that I know of has ever said that the F-35B will "melt decks". That's a silly and dishonest straw-man that the shills raise all the time. Spaz, can you quote an informed critic (that is, not some TV reporter) saying anything of the kind?
And I count $XX million Navy contracts as more convincing than anecdotes provided by phony think-tanks on the LockMart payroll...
WhitePapers | SLDInfo
The hard facts remain that the B appears to have (among its other limitations) a real issue with VL on normal surfaces, and that nobody has shown that "creeping vertical" will solve the problem, particularly on come-as-you-are forward strips. Moreover, the B is 3000 pounds heavier than the A, which already lands pretty hot, so conventional probably means a fast landing.
Last edited by LowObservable; 1st Apr 2013 at 14:42.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why would it do a "creeping vertical" on a normal surface 'runway' it would land normally.
vertical or "creeping vertical" is for ship, as well as austere landing conditions and training.
no one is saying the permanent home bases won't be of very durably long life material to vertically and rolling landings, but it will be for training
no one is saying there wont be semi-permanent concrete runways that consideration for the V-22 and fast jet will need to be taken into account and being worked on
It's doubtful the USMC is just going to put down a 700-1000ft takeoff runway for a f-35b, they will make the AM2 longer for transports to use as well, but a f-35b can vertically "creeping vertical" and conventionally land on the standard 'normal' AM2 mat
vertical or "creeping vertical" is for ship, as well as austere landing conditions and training.
no one is saying the permanent home bases won't be of very durably long life material to vertically and rolling landings, but it will be for training
no one is saying there wont be semi-permanent concrete runways that consideration for the V-22 and fast jet will need to be taken into account and being worked on
It's doubtful the USMC is just going to put down a 700-1000ft takeoff runway for a f-35b, they will make the AM2 longer for transports to use as well, but a f-35b can vertically "creeping vertical" and conventionally land on the standard 'normal' AM2 mat
Last edited by JSFfan; 1st Apr 2013 at 12:44.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So...... basing at a remote austere short runway is out. There goes any concept of mobility or flexibility.
Pretty much renders the aircraft pointless as surely the whole point of having a V/STOL fighter is that it can fly from austere thinly prepared sites close to the action......? Wasn't that the whole rationale of the Harrier?
Pretty much renders the aircraft pointless as surely the whole point of having a V/STOL fighter is that it can fly from austere thinly prepared sites close to the action......? Wasn't that the whole rationale of the Harrier?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unconventional conventional landing for a Harrier, seems perfectly fine to me,
the question remains however, why would they do this in the first place, apart from a technical failure there seems to be no need/benefit for/from such a landingtechnique.
Don't know if this isa 100% conventional take off(nozzle position) but the landings seem to be pretty conventional to me;
the question remains however, why would they do this in the first place, apart from a technical failure there seems to be no need/benefit for/from such a landingtechnique.
Don't know if this isa 100% conventional take off(nozzle position) but the landings seem to be pretty conventional to me;
Last edited by kbrockman; 1st Apr 2013 at 14:21.
kbrockman
When I was an air trafficker at a Top Secret, Top Gun, GW1, GW2 hero airfield not far south of Stamford, a conventional landing was treated as an emergency as the nozzles were stuck aft after a failure.
As regard to taking off. Why use more fuel getting airborne on nozzles when the wings will get you up anyway.
When I was an air trafficker at a Top Secret, Top Gun, GW1, GW2 hero airfield not far south of Stamford, a conventional landing was treated as an emergency as the nozzles were stuck aft after a failure.
As regard to taking off. Why use more fuel getting airborne on nozzles when the wings will get you up anyway.
Originally Posted by JSFfan
cruise with min AB
Seriouslt mate, your posts do not appear to be supported by any credible background if you are getting so many basics wrong.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my ignorance, I assume Hog means "M1.25" dry is without AB and "cruise with min AB" is M1.5, being that Super-cruise is M1.5+
I assume he is talking about this being at the same altitude
I also assume O'Bryan says what he means when he said
"The F-35, while not technically a “super-cruising” aircraft, can maintain
Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
“Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan said"
I also assume maintain, sustain "dash of 150 nm" used with the f-35 is the same as "dash of 100 nm" used with the f-22 and other jets "dashes" and part of a mission requirement and doesn't mean winding a jet to top speed and then cutting AB to see how long it takes to drop out of supersonic
I assume he is talking about this being at the same altitude
I also assume O'Bryan says what he means when he said
"The F-35, while not technically a “super-cruising” aircraft, can maintain
Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
“Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan said"
I also assume maintain, sustain "dash of 150 nm" used with the f-35 is the same as "dash of 100 nm" used with the f-22 and other jets "dashes" and part of a mission requirement and doesn't mean winding a jet to top speed and then cutting AB to see how long it takes to drop out of supersonic
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where there's a lot of money involved, there are always 'Shills'.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill#section_5
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill#section_5
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,583
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
AV-8B Conventional Landing Technique from NATOPS
The AV-8B NATOPS is available from: http://info.publicintelligence.net/AV-8B-000.pdf (36Mb)
The article about F-35B conventional landings makes this reference to AV-8B Harrier conventional landings "...working its [AV-8B] jet nozzles more or less the same way [as VL or RVLs]...". Attached are clickable thumbnails to the relevant AV-8B NATOPS pages describing such a conventional landing with 'nozzle use' highlighted. Text excerpt is from same NATOPS:
"...7.6.7 Conventional Landing
A standard CL, Figure 7-7, requires substantially greater distance to stop than a SL or RVL. Landing distance available is a critical consideration when performing a CL. The brakes are designed primarily for V/STOL and are marginal for a CL without PNB; therefore, No PNB CLs should be used only as an emergency procedure. Refer to Performance Data, A1--AV8BB--NFM--400, for stopping distance with and without PNB...." PNB = Power Nozzle Braking
The article about F-35B conventional landings makes this reference to AV-8B Harrier conventional landings "...working its [AV-8B] jet nozzles more or less the same way [as VL or RVLs]...". Attached are clickable thumbnails to the relevant AV-8B NATOPS pages describing such a conventional landing with 'nozzle use' highlighted. Text excerpt is from same NATOPS:
"...7.6.7 Conventional Landing
A standard CL, Figure 7-7, requires substantially greater distance to stop than a SL or RVL. Landing distance available is a critical consideration when performing a CL. The brakes are designed primarily for V/STOL and are marginal for a CL without PNB; therefore, No PNB CLs should be used only as an emergency procedure. Refer to Performance Data, A1--AV8BB--NFM--400, for stopping distance with and without PNB...." PNB = Power Nozzle Braking
Another nail in the coffin of the "deck environment just like an AV-8B":
Other Program Issues
The LHA 6 will incur an estimated $42.4 million in cost growth due to post-delivery rework of the ship's deck to cope with exhaust and downwash from the Joint Strike Fighter. In October 2011, the Navy began at-sea testing on USS Wasp to determine how LHA 6 may need to modify its flight deck and found that approximately 43 items require relocation, shielding, protection, or other modifications. According to officials, modifications include adding below deck stiffeners, moving antennae, weapon systems and other equipment, and adding a cover to fueling stations.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653379.pdf
And this is on a new ship built from the keel up to handle JSF - so will the same mods suffice for the older LHDs? Lies and the lying liars who tell them...
Other Program Issues
The LHA 6 will incur an estimated $42.4 million in cost growth due to post-delivery rework of the ship's deck to cope with exhaust and downwash from the Joint Strike Fighter. In October 2011, the Navy began at-sea testing on USS Wasp to determine how LHA 6 may need to modify its flight deck and found that approximately 43 items require relocation, shielding, protection, or other modifications. According to officials, modifications include adding below deck stiffeners, moving antennae, weapon systems and other equipment, and adding a cover to fueling stations.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653379.pdf
And this is on a new ship built from the keel up to handle JSF - so will the same mods suffice for the older LHDs? Lies and the lying liars who tell them...
It seems you assume a lot, JSFfan and a lot of you're saying doesn't make much sense in aviation terms. None of it answers any of the currently debated issues nor the question I have asked you.
This debate is meaningless if it is simply based on your interpretation on internet stuff you seem to spend a lot of time seeking out if you lack the credentials to bring it here and preach it as fact.
Please answer my question. Tell us your credentials in all this. I do so hope you're not just another troll.
This debate is meaningless if it is simply based on your interpretation on internet stuff you seem to spend a lot of time seeking out if you lack the credentials to bring it here and preach it as fact.
Please answer my question. Tell us your credentials in all this. I do so hope you're not just another troll.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 1st Apr 2013 at 20:32.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't too sure about the second video (RED FLAG start+recovery) but the first one with the MARINES AV8B seems like a conventional landing , nozzles are down for braking but that's after touch down I assume.
Could be wrong though, haven't seen conventional landings myself so I have no point of reference, only go by what is described in the first video which clearly states conventional landng.
Could be wrong though, haven't seen conventional landings myself so I have no point of reference, only go by what is described in the first video which clearly states conventional landng.