F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Confirming that BEags does have an eye for beauty. 
F-35 won't be winning any beauty contests.
I do like the confidence Spaz's quote:
If this is the production model we'd better hope it succeeds during testing.
Merry Christmas to all that are working hard to make the project work.
F-35 won't be winning any beauty contests.I do like the confidence Spaz's quote:
the first F-35C fitted with a production tailhook
Merry Christmas to all that are working hard to make the project work.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
I could be wrong, but with the nose gear off the deck looks like a 'fly in' arrestment to me. But hey, you could be right. So could I. Ain't this fun?
Best Regards as ever
Engines
I could be wrong, but with the nose gear off the deck looks like a 'fly in' arrestment to me. But hey, you could be right. So could I. Ain't this fun?
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Guys, it's not rocket science. It's just a hook; admittedly made more difficult by the stealth constraints and the size of the internal weapons bay, but it's still just a hook. It will eventually work. Won't it?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Roll In Arrest Tests + GrapeVine
From another 'sauce':
My imagination says that accelerating any Naval Aircraft to a groundspeed where the nose can be raised and held up with hook dropped is fraught with undesirable possibilities - especially any non-view over the nose, ahead - and leaving the runway unintentionally.
Hooks do not like being dragged too far on a runway - I'll guess the pilots doing roll-in tests are good at dropping the hook exactly as required.
_____________
Addition: Grapevine says: "Prior to this fly-in, 3 successfull roll-ins were performed". I'll wager the smoke seen in the photo is not from a 'roll-in'.
"Roll-in --
Jet is on the rwy at a target ground speed and the hook is dropped at a predetermined distance in front of the wire... not unlike taking the long field gear, or a precautionary arrestment like the USAF would do at mid-field."
Jet is on the rwy at a target ground speed and the hook is dropped at a predetermined distance in front of the wire... not unlike taking the long field gear, or a precautionary arrestment like the USAF would do at mid-field."
Hooks do not like being dragged too far on a runway - I'll guess the pilots doing roll-in tests are good at dropping the hook exactly as required.
_____________
Addition: Grapevine says: "Prior to this fly-in, 3 successfull roll-ins were performed". I'll wager the smoke seen in the photo is not from a 'roll-in'.
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 25th Dec 2013 at 23:50.
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
Seeing all the tiresmoke, I would guess this is indeed an arrested landing,
not just a run-in, which IIRC already happened some time ago.
not just a run-in, which IIRC already happened some time ago.
Did you mean X-32?
Hideous looking thing - I remember seeing the mock-up at Farnborough and thinking "They cannot be serious!".
Talk about 'Guppy fish at feeding time'.....
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure the USN have much data on what gives a succesful arrested landing given the matter of wire behaviour (after it is trampled by the wheels) just before the hook gets to it, as well as hook bounce following the hook hitting the deck (and before the aircraft has touched down).
I am no expert in this stuff but back in the 60s I did have to do far too may run in arrests in a Scimitar and a Sea Vixen to help Naval Air Department at Bedford develop various arrester gear retarding systems. It was always suggested to me (so far as an aircraft is concerned) that once you have completely sorted the run in case all you then have to fiddle with is the hook damper characteristics to sort out hook bounce.
I am no expert in this stuff but back in the 60s I did have to do far too may run in arrests in a Scimitar and a Sea Vixen to help Naval Air Department at Bedford develop various arrester gear retarding systems. It was always suggested to me (so far as an aircraft is concerned) that once you have completely sorted the run in case all you then have to fiddle with is the hook damper characteristics to sort out hook bounce.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The twitch when you must trap or do a reasonable conventional approach (especially when the vis is poor) is just not there if you can VL (anywhere)."
John; just how many times has that capability been employed in reality?
I ask again; and the answer is?
Roj: edit still not working correctly
John; just how many times has that capability been employed in reality?
I ask again; and the answer is?
Roj: edit still not working correctly
Beags... I remember looking at that mockup (it was a STOVL model) and thinking at first that then had sawn off part of the wing to fit the shelter, and then realizing with increasing horror that they had not.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cufaye
For the reasons I gave it is employed every time you do a VL - when there is always a lack of twitch about fuel compared to traditional ways of landing aboard or on a runway. I am sorry if I don't seem to understand your point.
I didn't reply first time 'cos I thought you had made a mistake and I don't agree with criticising people as opposed to dealing with the topic. However you insisted so here I am.
John; just how many times has that capability been employed in reality?
I didn't reply first time 'cos I thought you had made a mistake and I don't agree with criticising people as opposed to dealing with the topic. However you insisted so here I am.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The jet did both roll ins and a fly in, more to follow next year. Tony Wilson was also involved in the VAAC trials so maybe someone you have worked with previously Engines?
The X-32 is at the Air Museum at NAS Pax River, MD, opposite the X-35C, hence comparing and contrasting is very easy. The X-35 looks a lot more right!
My tuppence on other issues, Thermion is the name of the company that makes the deck coating, their website covers the USS Wasp trials.
The Japanese using only 6 jets on the Hyuga is not that dissimilar to the USMC conops or the number of jets the Italian Navy will git on their carriers. The biggest issue will be the Japanese post war Constitution with regards to aircraft carriers and getting the politicians on side. But with the Chinese now having a carrier and other local issues this may be straight forward.
The X-32 is at the Air Museum at NAS Pax River, MD, opposite the X-35C, hence comparing and contrasting is very easy. The X-35 looks a lot more right!
My tuppence on other issues, Thermion is the name of the company that makes the deck coating, their website covers the USS Wasp trials.
The Japanese using only 6 jets on the Hyuga is not that dissimilar to the USMC conops or the number of jets the Italian Navy will git on their carriers. The biggest issue will be the Japanese post war Constitution with regards to aircraft carriers and getting the politicians on side. But with the Chinese now having a carrier and other local issues this may be straight forward.
Last edited by WhiteOvies; 27th Dec 2013 at 04:21.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the Japanese Constitution has nothing to do with aircraft carriers. Or exports of military equipment. Those are government policies, nothing more.
I seem to be posting this about once a year.
Here... read it for yourself.
THE CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN
And the legal interpretation that allows a military that isn't a military:
I. Constitution of Japan and Right of Self-Defense
From the last link:
Defensive aircraft carriers are perfectly OK.
I seem to be posting this about once a year.
Here... read it for yourself.
THE CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN
And the legal interpretation that allows a military that isn't a military:
I. Constitution of Japan and Right of Self-Defense
From the last link:
The self-defense capability to be possessed and maintained by Japan under the Constitution is limited to the minimum necessary for self-defense.
The specific limit has a relative aspect of varying with the international situation, the level of military technology and various other conditions. It is defined in the Diet, the representatives of the people through deliberations about each fiscal year budget etc. However, whether or not the said armed strength corresponds to "war potential" prohibited under paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Constitution is an issue regarding the total strength that Japan possesses and maintains. Accordingly, whether or not the SDF are allowed to possess some specific armaments is decided by whether the total strength will or will not exceed the constitutional limit by possessing such armaments.
But in any case in Japan, it is unconstitutional to possess what is referred to as offensive weapons that, from their performance, are to be used exclusively for total destruction of other countries, since it immediately exceeds the minimum level necessary for self-defense. For instance, the SDF is not allowed to possess ICBMs, long-range strategic bombers or offensive aircraft carriers.
The specific limit has a relative aspect of varying with the international situation, the level of military technology and various other conditions. It is defined in the Diet, the representatives of the people through deliberations about each fiscal year budget etc. However, whether or not the said armed strength corresponds to "war potential" prohibited under paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Constitution is an issue regarding the total strength that Japan possesses and maintains. Accordingly, whether or not the SDF are allowed to possess some specific armaments is decided by whether the total strength will or will not exceed the constitutional limit by possessing such armaments.
But in any case in Japan, it is unconstitutional to possess what is referred to as offensive weapons that, from their performance, are to be used exclusively for total destruction of other countries, since it immediately exceeds the minimum level necessary for self-defense. For instance, the SDF is not allowed to possess ICBMs, long-range strategic bombers or offensive aircraft carriers.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article: Will the F-35 Dominate the Skies?
Commentary: Will the F-35 Dominate the Skies? | The National Interest
A link to an article I found on Aviation Week's Frago blog. Quite brief and easily digestible. I have no knowledge of the author's credentials either way.
In summary, while he does not endorse the way in which F35 has monopolised funding and procurement budgets, he is of the view that it has survived the 'death spiral' and as it is what many countries are going to get, they will have to make the best of it.
LF
A link to an article I found on Aviation Week's Frago blog. Quite brief and easily digestible. I have no knowledge of the author's credentials either way.
In summary, while he does not endorse the way in which F35 has monopolised funding and procurement budgets, he is of the view that it has survived the 'death spiral' and as it is what many countries are going to get, they will have to make the best of it.
LF
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In summary, while he does not endorse the way in which F35 has monopolised funding and procurement budgets, he is of the view that it has survived the 'death spiral' and as it is what many countries are going to get, they will have to make the best of it.
What worries me is an over an over reliance on a single platform by to many of the same allies at once. Imagine every thing starting to go to hell in a hand basket after its been in service for a while, and a sudden a problem surfaces with it that can't be ignored.
What worries me is an over an over reliance on a single platform by to many of the same allies at once. Imagine every thing starting to go to hell in a hand basket after its been in service for a while, and a sudden a problem surfaces with it that can't be ignored.
Remember this from the same stable and it worked out real fine...The mighty F-16 series once touted as the "deal of the Century" [1975] when NATO allies placed big orders and are still flying them! The type spread around the world and is still in limited production 39 years after its first flight>>
I think the F-35 and her derivatives will ultimately do fine...