F35 C first deck landing
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
There is another point of view.
If I was buying F-35s and they worked, plus were on time and on original cost estimates, I would know that I had screwed up and not set the spec high enough.
By definition the real leading edge stuff is just out of reach today.
If I was buying F-35s and they worked, plus were on time and on original cost estimates, I would know that I had screwed up and not set the spec high enough.
By definition the real leading edge stuff is just out of reach today.
Hi John, isn't it that kind of thinking that eventually did for the Comanche helicopter - shooting for the always-just-out-of-reach 100% solution, when an 80% solution would have gotten the platform operational on time and on budget rather than canned?
Good philosophy, John, but the idea is to have a platform that meets a set of specs that meet a set of requirements. Not, "This will do what you need, but it will be able to do whole lot more stuff that your requirement doesn't state as long as you're happy to pay a lot more and to tear up your required IOC date."
The big problems seem to be the basics at the moment - we all know the list. Future technology growth can come later. As LO has said, lots of aircraft delivered with no capability isn't what we really wanted.
The big problems seem to be the basics at the moment - we all know the list. Future technology growth can come later. As LO has said, lots of aircraft delivered with no capability isn't what we really wanted.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 20th Nov 2014 at 11:35.
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Far, far away.
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was buying F-35s and they worked, plus were on time and on original cost estimates, I would know that I had screwed up and not set the spec high enough.
And if I was asked to summarise, in one sentence, the sort of thinking led to the failure of so many western military projects since the mid 1950's, that sentence would be it.
And if I was asked to summarise, in one sentence, the sort of thinking led to the failure of so many western military projects since the mid 1950's, that sentence would be it.
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
melmothtw
I suspect The Comanche programme being so much smaller than the F-35 was always going to be easier to cancel – for whatever reason.
Courtney
I don’t know if you count the engine as a basic issue. But when I saw the diagram of the compressor sealing arrangements in Av Week a while back I thought “Golly (English for f..k me) that will give a step change in overall compressor efficiency compared to the engines we are used to” then a few moments later “But that is bold and going to be difficult”
I suspect The Comanche programme being so much smaller than the F-35 was always going to be easier to cancel – for whatever reason.
Courtney
I don’t know if you count the engine as a basic issue. But when I saw the diagram of the compressor sealing arrangements in Av Week a while back I thought “Golly (English for f..k me) that will give a step change in overall compressor efficiency compared to the engines we are used to” then a few moments later “But that is bold and going to be difficult”
Harry/LO:
About 143 fighters already delivered, in whatever config ... is a larger fighter fleet than how many nations?
LO, I see your point on IOC.
I had to deal with the effects of this program a decade ago and more, in terms of how it ate acquisition dollars and had impacts (negative) on a variety of programs to include the T-45 A to C conversion, T-45C being the trainer jet that feeds the F-35 pilot cadres.
I am not pleased with how long it is taking to get this bird IOC.
When one considers the expense of the aircraft, both per unit and the whole system. (Includes the simulators, training bases, maintenance training, etc.) the program has been attracting a lot of fair criticism. Also, some unfair.
F me, it's a money sink.
mel, reference Comanche:
Original buy target was over a thousand, which numbers got pared back twice (maybe thrice?) as program progressed. IIRC, it was below 1000 when the final axe fell.
The cost per unit went up a number of times by simply reducing buy numbers.
Yes, chasing some "close to the edge" performance numbers on that bird (won't further comment on the specs/requirements) didn't help its chances of surviving.
Sad to see it go the way of the plains buffalo.
John:
IMO, the Comanche's worst opponents were inside the US Army. Between the Apache mafia, and a lot of other acquisition/weapons systems that needed funding, making runs at Apache became fashionable by pretty much every other program.
Self inflicted wound by US Army, all the way around. I admit this may be an oversimplification. I don't think it is fair to call the Comanche a small acquisition program, given that the original aim was about 1000 aircraft. That's a substantial fleet.
All that comparison shows is how bloated F-35 is.
About 143 fighters already delivered, in whatever config ... is a larger fighter fleet than how many nations?
LO, I see your point on IOC.
I had to deal with the effects of this program a decade ago and more, in terms of how it ate acquisition dollars and had impacts (negative) on a variety of programs to include the T-45 A to C conversion, T-45C being the trainer jet that feeds the F-35 pilot cadres.
I am not pleased with how long it is taking to get this bird IOC.
When one considers the expense of the aircraft, both per unit and the whole system. (Includes the simulators, training bases, maintenance training, etc.) the program has been attracting a lot of fair criticism. Also, some unfair.
F me, it's a money sink.
mel, reference Comanche:
Original buy target was over a thousand, which numbers got pared back twice (maybe thrice?) as program progressed. IIRC, it was below 1000 when the final axe fell.
The cost per unit went up a number of times by simply reducing buy numbers.
Yes, chasing some "close to the edge" performance numbers on that bird (won't further comment on the specs/requirements) didn't help its chances of surviving.
Sad to see it go the way of the plains buffalo.
John:
IMO, the Comanche's worst opponents were inside the US Army. Between the Apache mafia, and a lot of other acquisition/weapons systems that needed funding, making runs at Apache became fashionable by pretty much every other program.
Self inflicted wound by US Army, all the way around. I admit this may be an oversimplification. I don't think it is fair to call the Comanche a small acquisition program, given that the original aim was about 1000 aircraft. That's a substantial fleet.
All that comparison shows is how bloated F-35 is.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Always nice to read the encouragement from Willa Wonky and the One-Liner Laxettes. Meanwhile for those interested here (and to get back to this thread topic) is - oh no not - another hook profile pic:
ORIGINAL LARGE PIC:
http://www.navy.mil/management/photo...-AZ866-050.JPG
ORIGINAL LARGE PIC:
http://www.navy.mil/management/photo...-AZ866-050.JPG
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Further to the 'look ma no hands F-35C VX-23 NIMITZ catapult' technique... learn something new every day (or perhaps this is a VX-23 exception?). I was always under impression that Hornet pilots had hand on throttle for catapulting, with other hand on the canopy grip. Maybe it is a VX-23 thing or perhaps optional? Whatever.... Pilot is going to fly the X-32 later.
F-18 Hornet Carrier Approach Explained + Catapult
F-18 Hornet Carrier Approach Explained + Catapult
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to the 'look ma no hands F-35C VX-23 NIMITZ catapult' technique... learn something new every day (or perhaps this is a VX-23 exception?). I was always under impression that Hornet pilots had hand on throttle for catapulting, with other hand on the canopy grip.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'KenV' yes thanks I have seen the posts and started the topic I guess, however if one watches the video posted then the screenshot 'top' is from that whilst the 'below' is me mirroring the same screenshot. So I'll guess the video makers made the 'mirror' error during their editing. Hornet NATOPS may say something also.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was no throttle lock or grip in the Super Hornet, you just had to brace your arm - but you most definitely had your hand on the throttle. In fact I'm not sure there was a towel rail on the port side to hold.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Tah 'orca' - good to know. The A-4 peeps will be familiar with the catapult hand grip, rotated sideways down (from UP position in flight) for grabbing on when throttle full forward for catapulting with throttle friction on full. This aid was an essential aid for the short A4G 100-110 foot cat on MELBOURNE at 5-6G.
One A4G sprog [not me] is reported as going down without the hand grip and no throttle friction. He recovered off the bow with - thankfully - the engine winding up again promptly. Extra cat energy was imparted for first A4G catapult, with aircraft at lightweight also from 'max. arrested landing weight only' fuel onboard.
One A4G sprog [not me] is reported as going down without the hand grip and no throttle friction. He recovered off the bow with - thankfully - the engine winding up again promptly. Extra cat energy was imparted for first A4G catapult, with aircraft at lightweight also from 'max. arrested landing weight only' fuel onboard.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Steelers ‘Terrible Towel’ & Meagan (Slick) - from 'Speed & Angels' - later
Speakin' of Towels - here is one for the rack: http://www.post-gazette.com/image/20...-18-pilots.jpg
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Raise the BROOM!
History is always fun to learn - for me the broom and for others....? [+ additional quote should also be referenced to the TOOM experience earlier]
Clean Sweep: F-35 Fighter Confounds Critics With Perfect Performance In First Tests At Sea 21 Nov 2014 Loren Thompson
Clean Sweep: F-35 Fighter Confounds Critics With Perfect Performance In First Tests At Sea - Forbes
F4H Carrier Suitability 15 Apr 1960 McDonnell Aircraft Report No. 7462
http://aviationarchives.net/F-4H%20C...uitability.pdf (5.3Mb)
Clean Sweep: F-35 Fighter Confounds Critics With Perfect Performance In First Tests At Sea 21 Nov 2014 Loren Thompson
"There’s a tradition in the U.S. Navy that when missions are a complete success, a broom gets raised up the mast to signal a “clean sweep.” That’s what happened on November 14 when the F-35C Lightning II completed its first series of developmental tests on the U.S.S. Nimitz aircraft carrier. Sailors sent a broom up the mast below the flag to signal the tests had gone very well....
...As one Navy test pilot observed in an official news release, “It’s unheard of to conduct night ops on the first det,” meaning developmental test...."
&
"...One key feature on the naval variant that performed well in the recent tests was a system called Delta Flight Path that enables the F-35C to automatically capture and maintain the optimum glidepath on final approach to the carrier — reducing the pilot workload, increasing safety, and making F-35C, in the words of the Navy’s testing team leader, “a carefree aircraft from the pilot’s perspective.”
This may be the first time ever that the word ”carefree” has been used by a Navy tester to describe the performance of a new carrier-based aircraft. Adjectives like “arduous” and “challenging” are far more commonly used...."
...As one Navy test pilot observed in an official news release, “It’s unheard of to conduct night ops on the first det,” meaning developmental test...."
&
"...One key feature on the naval variant that performed well in the recent tests was a system called Delta Flight Path that enables the F-35C to automatically capture and maintain the optimum glidepath on final approach to the carrier — reducing the pilot workload, increasing safety, and making F-35C, in the words of the Navy’s testing team leader, “a carefree aircraft from the pilot’s perspective.”
This may be the first time ever that the word ”carefree” has been used by a Navy tester to describe the performance of a new carrier-based aircraft. Adjectives like “arduous” and “challenging” are far more commonly used...."
F4H Carrier Suitability 15 Apr 1960 McDonnell Aircraft Report No. 7462
"...Trials at Sea, Feb 1960
Following extensive build-up landing arrestments and catapult shots at NATC Patuxent River, the F4H-1 went to sea for the first time on 15-18 February aboard the USS Independence. Cdr. Larry Flint and Lcdr. Paul Spencer together accomplished 17 arrested landings - one at a sink rate of 21.8 FPS - and 18 catapult launches. The F4H-1 displayed a highly satisfactory degree of stability and controllability in the approach, a high reserve of power for wave-offs or bolters, and relative ease in deck handling and catapulting. The day operations were carried out so smoothly that even one night catapult and arrested landing were made-an unprecedented accomplishment for a new aircraft's first trip to sea...."
&
"...Because of its relatively low approach speed and its rugged construction (which permits a high engaging speed) the F4H wind-over-deck requirement for landing is particularly low. The fleet airplanes - #48 and up-will have greater structural strength, a new and stronger hook, and a correspondingly lower W.O.D. requirement than the early airplanes..."
Following extensive build-up landing arrestments and catapult shots at NATC Patuxent River, the F4H-1 went to sea for the first time on 15-18 February aboard the USS Independence. Cdr. Larry Flint and Lcdr. Paul Spencer together accomplished 17 arrested landings - one at a sink rate of 21.8 FPS - and 18 catapult launches. The F4H-1 displayed a highly satisfactory degree of stability and controllability in the approach, a high reserve of power for wave-offs or bolters, and relative ease in deck handling and catapulting. The day operations were carried out so smoothly that even one night catapult and arrested landing were made-an unprecedented accomplishment for a new aircraft's first trip to sea...."
&
"...Because of its relatively low approach speed and its rugged construction (which permits a high engaging speed) the F4H wind-over-deck requirement for landing is particularly low. The fleet airplanes - #48 and up-will have greater structural strength, a new and stronger hook, and a correspondingly lower W.O.D. requirement than the early airplanes..."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 22nd Nov 2014 at 14:39.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone here on PPRuNe compared the F-35 to the F-4, intending the comparison to be unfavorable (he was claiming the F-4 was too unmaneuverable to be a good fighter and not very good as a strike aircraft - and that the F-35 would be the same way).
So we once again see the F-35 being compared to the F-4 - but in a good way, highlighting how good both were on their first carrier suitability trials.
So we once again see the F-35 being compared to the F-4 - but in a good way, highlighting how good both were on their first carrier suitability trials.