More delays for the F-35
BGG - "we could even afford to get it refitted with UK engines and avionics too"
Thanks for the
after that comment, because I would otherwise have had to respond as mildly as humanly possible:
NO NO DAGNABBIT TO HELLZ NO*
As for the 1-v-2-seat argument: Which is better?
Answer: Both.
Single seat costs less, carries a half-ton more gas. Nice for CAP, air policing, tanking, fixed-target strike, cruise missile platform &c.
The USN has a lot of two-seaters (at one point they were going to be the majority of Block 2 aircraft). Good for FAC-A, anything that involves using multiple AESA modes, the targeting pod and ESM at the same time, while talking/datalinking, without sending the pilot into one-armed-paperhanger-on-a-unicycle mode.
For the dubious front-seater: Dual HMDs are supposed to make a big difference to the comms link between the front and back seats.
* I would make an exception for the Selex IRST. That's it.
Thanks for the
after that comment, because I would otherwise have had to respond as mildly as humanly possible:NO NO DAGNABBIT TO HELLZ NO*
As for the 1-v-2-seat argument: Which is better?
Answer: Both.
Single seat costs less, carries a half-ton more gas. Nice for CAP, air policing, tanking, fixed-target strike, cruise missile platform &c.
The USN has a lot of two-seaters (at one point they were going to be the majority of Block 2 aircraft). Good for FAC-A, anything that involves using multiple AESA modes, the targeting pod and ESM at the same time, while talking/datalinking, without sending the pilot into one-armed-paperhanger-on-a-unicycle mode.
For the dubious front-seater: Dual HMDs are supposed to make a big difference to the comms link between the front and back seats.
* I would make an exception for the Selex IRST. That's it.
Last edited by LowObservable; 8th Jan 2012 at 15:27.
Now, Sean, don't malign the brave, manly Marines.
They have used all the unique capabilities of STOVL (reconfiguring the amphib to all-STOVL, moving to austere bases that can't handle CTOL &c).
They have even used some of them more than once, which is pretty amazing in almost 40 years.
They have used all the unique capabilities of STOVL (reconfiguring the amphib to all-STOVL, moving to austere bases that can't handle CTOL &c).
They have even used some of them more than once, which is pretty amazing in almost 40 years.
LO, I follow your drift on 1v2 seat. If we could pick our future fights and had some spare cash then we could have a mix of Es and Fs. If we can only afford one and the crystal ball can't see what conflicts are coming, buy the one that can do everything we need.
F35B, again I say, too many moving parts. Take off, do a wizard combat mission, kill the enemy, return to carrier to find one microswitch fails and the whole VL thing is locked up. So, just throw the whole jet away for one little switch. Harrier just a bike chain, not much to go wrong.
Before you say it, YES I KNOW, I'm just making a point.
F35B, again I say, too many moving parts. Take off, do a wizard combat mission, kill the enemy, return to carrier to find one microswitch fails and the whole VL thing is locked up. So, just throw the whole jet away for one little switch. Harrier just a bike chain, not much to go wrong.
Before you say it, YES I KNOW, I'm just making a point.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere completely unimportant and unnecessary
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO, you're right, they sure showed all the doubters that STOVL is a capability NATO simply cannot do without; better yet, I'm now convinced that we should buy the ultra-technical, ultra-expensive jet to keep that great capacity alive. Most of the potential adversaries will be flying jets so old that their serviceability will be terrible too, happy days
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure you'll be able to put me right here, but if we have runways and proper carriers, why do we need a more complicated jet just to give us STOVL? Why not use the space in the jet for fuel and the available weight for stores? F36C, I can still see an argument for, but I'm starting to lean towards F18 or something simpler, cheaper and proven, no matter how many seats.
i'm bemused by the 'STO/VL' concept - except for mini-carriers - thats a selling point for the 'B'. this is supposed to an aircraft that you can use from an austere, short strip - yet is there anything about the F-35 that suggests to anyone that it will be able to be based a thousand miles from an air-conditioned, hermetically-sealed hangar?
can anyone anyone imagine this aircraft operating from Kandahar airfield in December 2001?
no, me neither...
can anyone anyone imagine this aircraft operating from Kandahar airfield in December 2001?
no, me neither...
Even if the stealth features prove to be robust I do wonder about the tactical longevity of the LO capabilities. Technology is moving a pace and I am not convinced that the 20 to 30 yr lifespan of this fleet will see the F-35 LO capability remain valid or totally effective.
Without stealth we will have a 7G, non-vectoring, non-supercruise, shortish range, average payload, single engine Mach 1.6 aircraft. The avionics will be replicated in other aircraft so that will not be a defining capability.
Of course, at the moment the F-35 is a Mach 1.6 but blistering the back end so best not, unproven LO with an achilles IPP with hook vs wire system 'under development' aircraft. The avionics, including the semi-blind DAS that has the pilots wishing for NVGs and a HUD, have yet to live up to their promise. I am sure these issues will be ironed out but will the LO capability stand the test of time?
Without stealth we will have a 7G, non-vectoring, non-supercruise, shortish range, average payload, single engine Mach 1.6 aircraft. The avionics will be replicated in other aircraft so that will not be a defining capability.
Of course, at the moment the F-35 is a Mach 1.6 but blistering the back end so best not, unproven LO with an achilles IPP with hook vs wire system 'under development' aircraft. The avionics, including the semi-blind DAS that has the pilots wishing for NVGs and a HUD, have yet to live up to their promise. I am sure these issues will be ironed out but will the LO capability stand the test of time?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere completely unimportant and unnecessary
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other than the stealth, the big thing that's sold me on getting it, eventually, is its supposed ability to hoover up a vast amount of information and distribute that to all its friendly assets....like a longbow radar on the world's greatest steroids; the way the programme is going at the moment though, I would imagine integration of these systems isn't the most pressing issue. Probably best to wait until they've actually finished writing the other 50% of the block 5 software before speculating how long the it will take reality to catch up with the specification.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Glesga, Scotland
Age: 51
Posts: 230
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice video , altho I was really surprised at the cover for the lift fan just behind the cockpit having to be extended on take off, it is just acting like a big air brake is it not ? , ESP when you want as much forward airspeed to get of the deck
Is this the norm ? Or just for STVOL ?
Is this the norm ? Or just for STVOL ?
Couldn't see any repave on the deck, looked to me like normal camrex.
If my maths is right, that's three (four or five if you count the different flavours of Kestrel/Harrier) jets that have actually done proper STOVL launch / recoveries off a ship. Whatever you think about Dave B, still an achievement.
If my maths is right, that's three (four or five if you count the different flavours of Kestrel/Harrier) jets that have actually done proper STOVL launch / recoveries off a ship. Whatever you think about Dave B, still an achievement.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 9th Jan 2012 at 08:52. Reason: Obvious omission
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
If my maths is right, that's three (four or five if you count the different flavours of Kestrel/Harrier) jets that have actually done proper launch / recoveries off a ship.
ORAC - Or, as John Fozard described the pilot's attitude in that scenario: "A good position, but not for flying."
NaB - I think there was a patch of experimental anti-skid on there somewhere, but the potential issue with F-35B on ships is fatigue. I believe Wasp was instrumented for heat and vibration.
Sean - There are some outright hucksters talking about the F-35 as a networked platform. (1) It is not at all unique, since all it has - other than a datalink that connects a flight of F-35s - is plain vanilla Link 16 and (2) stealth aircraft are not easy to network, since all antennas have to be LO-compatible.
And if they are on any mission where stealth is important they will transmit as little as possible (mostly on their private link). The reason is that if an ESM system like the Russian and Chinese analogs of the Czech Vera-E detects and locates the ping-blorp-blorp-ping from a datalink, but air-defense radar can't see anything there, the defenders now know not only where you are, but what you are.
NaB - I think there was a patch of experimental anti-skid on there somewhere, but the potential issue with F-35B on ships is fatigue. I believe Wasp was instrumented for heat and vibration.
Sean - There are some outright hucksters talking about the F-35 as a networked platform. (1) It is not at all unique, since all it has - other than a datalink that connects a flight of F-35s - is plain vanilla Link 16 and (2) stealth aircraft are not easy to network, since all antennas have to be LO-compatible.
And if they are on any mission where stealth is important they will transmit as little as possible (mostly on their private link). The reason is that if an ESM system like the Russian and Chinese analogs of the Czech Vera-E detects and locates the ping-blorp-blorp-ping from a datalink, but air-defense radar can't see anything there, the defenders now know not only where you are, but what you are.
As indeed was this..
Convair XFY Pogo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Whoever the Ryan TP was, that was a serious pair of cojones transitioning into the vertical with no forward visibility! Makes the periscope for Naval Typhoon carrier approach look almost sane.
Sean - I assume you refer to bringback?
Convair XFY Pogo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Whoever the Ryan TP was, that was a serious pair of cojones transitioning into the vertical with no forward visibility! Makes the periscope for Naval Typhoon carrier approach look almost sane.
Sean - I assume you refer to bringback?
Oops!
U.S. Navy and U.K. Royal Navy F-35 Unable to Get Aboard Ship
(Source: F16.net; posted Jan. 8, 2012)
(by Eric L. Palmer)
The U.S. Navy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) known as the F-35C is at serious risk of never being able to land aboard an aircraft carrier. This also poses a risk to the U.K. aircraft carrier program which is supposed to use the F-35C at the end of the decade.
Back in 2007, a Lockheed Martin year in review video stated that the F-35C carrier variant (CV) JSF had passed critical design review (CDR). The video and similar public statements said, "2007 saw the completion of the critical design review for the F-35C. The completion of CDR is a sign that each F-35 variant is mature and ready for production."
Yet, a November 2011 U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) quick-look report relating to engineering challenges arising from what is being called “concurrency issues” revealed that all eight run-in/rolling tests undertaken at NAS Lakehurst in August 2011 to see if the F-35C CV JSF could catch a wire with the tail hook have failed.
The report also mentions that the tail hook on the F-35C CV JSF is attached improperly to the aircraft. The distance from the hook to the main landing gear is so short that it is unlikely the aircraft will catch the landing wires on a ship's deck. This graphic from the review explains part of the problem. It illustrates the distance between the main landing gear and the tail hook of previous warplanes qualified to operate from aircraft carriers and compares these distances with that found on the F-35C CV JSF. In this regard, the report refers to the F-35C CV JSF as “an outlier”.
An industry expert who is a graduate Flight Test Engineer (FTE) of the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School (USNTPS), Peter Goon, stated that, "Given the limited amount of suitable structure at the back end of the JSF variants, due primarily to the commonality that was being sought between the three variant designs and the fact that the STOVL F-35B JSF is the baseline design, there was always going to be high risk associated with meeting the carrier suitability requirements."
He also points to well-known and well understood military specifications that address tail hook design requirements, such as MIL-A-81717C and MIL-D-8708C.
(update: the first one should read MIL-A-18717C not MIL-A-81717C as first reported)
When asked how such things could have been missed, Peter suggested they likely weren’t, at least by the engineers, but their concerns would have just as likely been ignored.
He said this should come as no surprise, given the level of stove-piping that had been applied to the F-35 program's engineer community and the dominance of “form over substance” and “a total indifference to what is real” being hallmarks of the program – “Affordability is the cornerstone of the JSF Program” being but one example. (end of excerpt)
(Source: F16.net; posted Jan. 8, 2012)
(by Eric L. Palmer)
The U.S. Navy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) known as the F-35C is at serious risk of never being able to land aboard an aircraft carrier. This also poses a risk to the U.K. aircraft carrier program which is supposed to use the F-35C at the end of the decade.
Back in 2007, a Lockheed Martin year in review video stated that the F-35C carrier variant (CV) JSF had passed critical design review (CDR). The video and similar public statements said, "2007 saw the completion of the critical design review for the F-35C. The completion of CDR is a sign that each F-35 variant is mature and ready for production."
Yet, a November 2011 U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) quick-look report relating to engineering challenges arising from what is being called “concurrency issues” revealed that all eight run-in/rolling tests undertaken at NAS Lakehurst in August 2011 to see if the F-35C CV JSF could catch a wire with the tail hook have failed.
The report also mentions that the tail hook on the F-35C CV JSF is attached improperly to the aircraft. The distance from the hook to the main landing gear is so short that it is unlikely the aircraft will catch the landing wires on a ship's deck. This graphic from the review explains part of the problem. It illustrates the distance between the main landing gear and the tail hook of previous warplanes qualified to operate from aircraft carriers and compares these distances with that found on the F-35C CV JSF. In this regard, the report refers to the F-35C CV JSF as “an outlier”.
An industry expert who is a graduate Flight Test Engineer (FTE) of the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School (USNTPS), Peter Goon, stated that, "Given the limited amount of suitable structure at the back end of the JSF variants, due primarily to the commonality that was being sought between the three variant designs and the fact that the STOVL F-35B JSF is the baseline design, there was always going to be high risk associated with meeting the carrier suitability requirements."
He also points to well-known and well understood military specifications that address tail hook design requirements, such as MIL-A-81717C and MIL-D-8708C.
(update: the first one should read MIL-A-18717C not MIL-A-81717C as first reported)
When asked how such things could have been missed, Peter suggested they likely weren’t, at least by the engineers, but their concerns would have just as likely been ignored.
He said this should come as no surprise, given the level of stove-piping that had been applied to the F-35 program's engineer community and the dominance of “form over substance” and “a total indifference to what is real” being hallmarks of the program – “Affordability is the cornerstone of the JSF Program” being but one example. (end of excerpt)
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
Sean
Never forget that the B spec says it has to carry 3500lb of weapons internally. So WE can't tell what it was carrying in the vid. However I would be the first to chastise the test team if they did not start at light weight and build up the stores load later.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere completely unimportant and unnecessary
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right, we can't visually tell if it's carrying anything, but it's a foregone conclusion that Dave B, the 70 stone man of the fighter community, wasn't carrying a single round of ammunition in those demonstrations and won't be for a long time (unless they have fixed the weight issues once and for all?).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm hoping our First Sea Lord might have seen the light on his visit to the Stennis Battle Group and with that in mind, is a Hornet in the hand worth a 'C' in the bush?
Was that ride in an F-18 just a 'tick in the box' or was there more to it?
If our first carrier were to be built with the cats and traps, then would we already be thinking about having to cancel this order and opt for the tried and tested F-18?
Is the F-35B still on probation and will this happen to the F-35C?
Was that ride in an F-18 just a 'tick in the box' or was there more to it?
If our first carrier were to be built with the cats and traps, then would we already be thinking about having to cancel this order and opt for the tried and tested F-18?
Is the F-35B still on probation and will this happen to the F-35C?