F35 C first deck landing
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
LOOK MA - BOTH HANDS!
"Taken on November 4, 2014 F-35C Sea Trials
The F-35C completes catapults and arrestments aboard the USS Nimitz during Developmental Testing I (DT-I), which is the first of three at-sea test phases planned for the U.S. Navy's F-35C carrier variant.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lockhe...n/15720532726/
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7516/...7d3ac8_o_d.jpg
The F-35C completes catapults and arrestments aboard the USS Nimitz during Developmental Testing I (DT-I), which is the first of three at-sea test phases planned for the U.S. Navy's F-35C carrier variant.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lockhe...n/15720532726/
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7516/...7d3ac8_o_d.jpg
Spaz, that picture shows that the -35C has a whole lotta wing....assuming the extra legs it must have, it seems a better GR4 replacement than the B...
Courtney, the F15 has aged remarkably well (have you done as well???) - but the USAF came close to having the F14 forced on it. If you believe Boyd's acolytes, swing-wing was all the rage in the 70's (B1, F111, MRCA, MiG-23 as well as the F14..) and he was instrumental in driving the FX towards the big wing and hence away from 'buy F14...' political solution.
And I had two VR6 Corrados - I resent any comparison to the F3!!
Courtney, the F15 has aged remarkably well (have you done as well???) - but the USAF came close to having the F14 forced on it. If you believe Boyd's acolytes, swing-wing was all the rage in the 70's (B1, F111, MRCA, MiG-23 as well as the F14..) and he was instrumental in driving the FX towards the big wing and hence away from 'buy F14...' political solution.
And I had two VR6 Corrados - I resent any comparison to the F3!!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, but don't forget that whilst the C does indeed have more fuel and goes further than the other variants - we couldn't possibly buy it because we tried to buy it once so a re-attack would make us look stupid and we would have to admit that wheel equipped naval jets were able to operate from surfaces other than boats. And in any case the A model is the Air Force variant so we need to buy that because we're an Air Force. Also it doesn't have a probe so we could spend more money fitting one, or fitting a boom to Voyager - whichever works out more expensive.
Originally Posted by Evalu8tor
Courtney, the F15 has aged remarkably well (have you done as well???)
...oh. And asking questions will simply trigger another onslaught on pretty pictures and newspaper articles.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spaz,
Your barrage of F-35 photos, landings and taking-offs from the carrier is becoming about as inflated as the cost to manufacture one F-35. To put things in perspective, the first real US Navy fighter to have a successful career onboard an aircraft carrier was this one:
Since that time, the US Navy has ordered many other fighters, nearly all of which have had the ability to both land and be catapulted into the air without great photographic fanfare. One that didn't make the Navy from the get-go was McNamara's folly, the combined service F-111. So, there is nothing special about the recent achievement of the F-35, it was required, expected, but late in demonstration as has been the whole F-35 program in general. For what the American taxpayers are paying for this airplane, and associated partners will pay, the road ahead will become much more interesting than today's Lockheed-Martin propaganda photos of landings and take-offs. Exactly how does the US Navy intend to use the F-35? It is over weight, lacking design speed, unable to take on G forces of fighters that have been in service for 25 years and doesn't have the range that it was supposedly designed to have. Is it a stand alone fighter or does it need continued support from the F-18 SuperHornet and/or the next generation Hornet to protect it from adversaries? Will the Navy need a special refueling transport to assist the F-35 on its way and return to the carrier given its less than optimal range? How will all the razzle dazzle electronic systems hold up in the salt water environment? What will be the flight readiness capability of the onboard fleet of F-35s? Maybe Lockheed-Martin will be able to address these questions once they are able to contain the cost to produce the F-35 which keeps going up and up and up…
Your barrage of F-35 photos, landings and taking-offs from the carrier is becoming about as inflated as the cost to manufacture one F-35. To put things in perspective, the first real US Navy fighter to have a successful career onboard an aircraft carrier was this one:
Since that time, the US Navy has ordered many other fighters, nearly all of which have had the ability to both land and be catapulted into the air without great photographic fanfare. One that didn't make the Navy from the get-go was McNamara's folly, the combined service F-111. So, there is nothing special about the recent achievement of the F-35, it was required, expected, but late in demonstration as has been the whole F-35 program in general. For what the American taxpayers are paying for this airplane, and associated partners will pay, the road ahead will become much more interesting than today's Lockheed-Martin propaganda photos of landings and take-offs. Exactly how does the US Navy intend to use the F-35? It is over weight, lacking design speed, unable to take on G forces of fighters that have been in service for 25 years and doesn't have the range that it was supposedly designed to have. Is it a stand alone fighter or does it need continued support from the F-18 SuperHornet and/or the next generation Hornet to protect it from adversaries? Will the Navy need a special refueling transport to assist the F-35 on its way and return to the carrier given its less than optimal range? How will all the razzle dazzle electronic systems hold up in the salt water environment? What will be the flight readiness capability of the onboard fleet of F-35s? Maybe Lockheed-Martin will be able to address these questions once they are able to contain the cost to produce the F-35 which keeps going up and up and up…
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TurbineD and others,
Perhaps I can help here with a few items on F-35C and getting aircraft on and off the deck.
Getting a aircraft to operate successfully from a flight deck is damned hard. There are plenty of examples of aircraft designs (as well as F-111) that never made it to deck operations. These include proposals for 'marinised' UK Lightnings, F-15 and even F-22 (amazingly, the USAF originally assumed a buy of over 200 'deck adapted' Raptors to bring the programme to 1000 aircraft). There are very few examples of a land based conventional jet operating successfully from a deck, the only one I can offer is the T-45 Goshawk, and that had plenty of challenges. Many well regarded carrier aircraft had fairly fraught initial deck trials and problems in their early careers.
Operating aircraft from a cat and trap carrier imposes a whole set of unique and very large loads into the airframe. The major ones are launch (aircraft rapidly accelerated to flying speed by loads applied to the bottom of the nose leg) and recovery (aircraft brought to halt by loads applied to the lower aft fuselage, with very large landing gear loads). These load cases generate massive internal structure - the F-35C carries round about two and a half tons of additional metal to handle these. The landing gear set on the C weights around two and a half times that on the A.
There are other driving requirements. The aircraft has to be able to land with very good control response at very low speeds (around 130 to 140 knots - driven by the capability of the CVN arresting gear). It's not surprising that the F-35C's main Key Performance Parameter (KPP) was its approach speed to the arresting wire. It also has to fly away safely after launch at a similar speed. This drives a larger wing and also larger control surfaces, plus uprated control actuators, and a special set of flight control laws.
There are many, many other ship specific requirements including pilot visibility, more stringent EEE, ground handling and taxying, anti-corrosion, weapon loading, etc. Oh, and finding space for a massive arresting hook system. (This is different to the emergency hook system on the A in almost every aspect, apart from general location of the airframe).
When you add all this lot together, you find that the available 'solution space' for a successful carrier aircraft is very, very small, and hard to get right. That's why the F-35 programme identified the successful ability to launch and recover an F-35C as a major technical risk early on in the programme.
And that's why the F-35 programme and the USN (who are releasing most of the material) are making a big deal about these sea trials. They are a major event, carry plenty of risk, and are being conducted in a glare of political interest. It's certainly something special. It only looks routine if you don't fully grasp just how hard it is. The USN do, and that's why they've got to this point.
Couple of points about the C - yes, that large wing (and the large wing tanks) delivers range, but the aircraft is the heaviest, the slowest accelerating of the three variants, with the worst sustained turn rate. It's also the least common of the three variants, and is the most expensive. In my view, a really good option for a GR4 replacement would be a 'big winged A' - all the advantage of the wing with less of the carrier weight. Replacing the A model boom receptacle with a probe and drogue would also, in my view, be a good move. I would bet a few pints that somewhere in LM a similar option is being looked at.
Final points for Turbine D -
1. The first really successful USN monoplane fighter aboard a carrier was (in my view) the Wildcat, which was instrumental in winning some of the early WW2 carrier battles. The Hellcat was a phenomenal USN fighter (and the most successful Allied fighter, land or sea based, of WW2), but not, in my view the first 'real' one.
2. All F-35 electronics are designed to operate in salt laden environments. Basic requirement, extensively tested with much USN input.
3. The F-35 will tank from whatever tankers are around, including F/A-18E/F
4. No, it can fight for itself without F/A-18 assistance.
5. The aircraft is within its weight targets, has the 'g' capability set out in the original requirement, and also meets original range and speed requirements. Sorry if this doesn't fit the usual perception, but there it is.
Hope this lot helps a little, of course others may and will disagree.
Best regards as ever to the people on flight decks making it happen,
Engines
PS: Thanks to Spaz for the excellent stuff you're posting.
Perhaps I can help here with a few items on F-35C and getting aircraft on and off the deck.
Getting a aircraft to operate successfully from a flight deck is damned hard. There are plenty of examples of aircraft designs (as well as F-111) that never made it to deck operations. These include proposals for 'marinised' UK Lightnings, F-15 and even F-22 (amazingly, the USAF originally assumed a buy of over 200 'deck adapted' Raptors to bring the programme to 1000 aircraft). There are very few examples of a land based conventional jet operating successfully from a deck, the only one I can offer is the T-45 Goshawk, and that had plenty of challenges. Many well regarded carrier aircraft had fairly fraught initial deck trials and problems in their early careers.
Operating aircraft from a cat and trap carrier imposes a whole set of unique and very large loads into the airframe. The major ones are launch (aircraft rapidly accelerated to flying speed by loads applied to the bottom of the nose leg) and recovery (aircraft brought to halt by loads applied to the lower aft fuselage, with very large landing gear loads). These load cases generate massive internal structure - the F-35C carries round about two and a half tons of additional metal to handle these. The landing gear set on the C weights around two and a half times that on the A.
There are other driving requirements. The aircraft has to be able to land with very good control response at very low speeds (around 130 to 140 knots - driven by the capability of the CVN arresting gear). It's not surprising that the F-35C's main Key Performance Parameter (KPP) was its approach speed to the arresting wire. It also has to fly away safely after launch at a similar speed. This drives a larger wing and also larger control surfaces, plus uprated control actuators, and a special set of flight control laws.
There are many, many other ship specific requirements including pilot visibility, more stringent EEE, ground handling and taxying, anti-corrosion, weapon loading, etc. Oh, and finding space for a massive arresting hook system. (This is different to the emergency hook system on the A in almost every aspect, apart from general location of the airframe).
When you add all this lot together, you find that the available 'solution space' for a successful carrier aircraft is very, very small, and hard to get right. That's why the F-35 programme identified the successful ability to launch and recover an F-35C as a major technical risk early on in the programme.
And that's why the F-35 programme and the USN (who are releasing most of the material) are making a big deal about these sea trials. They are a major event, carry plenty of risk, and are being conducted in a glare of political interest. It's certainly something special. It only looks routine if you don't fully grasp just how hard it is. The USN do, and that's why they've got to this point.
Couple of points about the C - yes, that large wing (and the large wing tanks) delivers range, but the aircraft is the heaviest, the slowest accelerating of the three variants, with the worst sustained turn rate. It's also the least common of the three variants, and is the most expensive. In my view, a really good option for a GR4 replacement would be a 'big winged A' - all the advantage of the wing with less of the carrier weight. Replacing the A model boom receptacle with a probe and drogue would also, in my view, be a good move. I would bet a few pints that somewhere in LM a similar option is being looked at.
Final points for Turbine D -
1. The first really successful USN monoplane fighter aboard a carrier was (in my view) the Wildcat, which was instrumental in winning some of the early WW2 carrier battles. The Hellcat was a phenomenal USN fighter (and the most successful Allied fighter, land or sea based, of WW2), but not, in my view the first 'real' one.
2. All F-35 electronics are designed to operate in salt laden environments. Basic requirement, extensively tested with much USN input.
3. The F-35 will tank from whatever tankers are around, including F/A-18E/F
4. No, it can fight for itself without F/A-18 assistance.
5. The aircraft is within its weight targets, has the 'g' capability set out in the original requirement, and also meets original range and speed requirements. Sorry if this doesn't fit the usual perception, but there it is.
Hope this lot helps a little, of course others may and will disagree.
Best regards as ever to the people on flight decks making it happen,
Engines
PS: Thanks to Spaz for the excellent stuff you're posting.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only by ripping out the entire avionics suite - including the radar and computers as well as the entire non-flight-control wiring set - and replacing it with the systems from the F-35.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T93,
Yes, the figures vary between variants. Best figures I can find (2012 DOT&E report) give the following for sustained G:
F-35A - 4.6
F-35B - 4.5
F-35C - 5
Note that the F-35C figure may be achieved at a lower speed than for the B and the A. (My error on sustained g in earlier post - sincere apologies).
KenV, I'd be a little surprised if the Advanced Super Hornet has more processing power (installed and operating) than the F-35. I was under the impression that the single company funded prototype focussed on the conformal tanks and weapons pod - I'm not aware that they've built a new avionics system as well. If you have any more info on this, please share it, I'd be really interested.
F-35 avionics architecture is quite radical and is designed to allow downstream upgrades in processors - but we will have to see how that pans out.
Best regards
Engines
Yes, the figures vary between variants. Best figures I can find (2012 DOT&E report) give the following for sustained G:
F-35A - 4.6
F-35B - 4.5
F-35C - 5
Note that the F-35C figure may be achieved at a lower speed than for the B and the A. (My error on sustained g in earlier post - sincere apologies).
KenV, I'd be a little surprised if the Advanced Super Hornet has more processing power (installed and operating) than the F-35. I was under the impression that the single company funded prototype focussed on the conformal tanks and weapons pod - I'm not aware that they've built a new avionics system as well. If you have any more info on this, please share it, I'd be really interested.
F-35 avionics architecture is quite radical and is designed to allow downstream upgrades in processors - but we will have to see how that pans out.
Best regards
Engines
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Again many thanks 'Engines'. Here is a historical perspective on Carrier Aircraft (in USN) and their trials: youse can work out where it came from.... and my fave deck landing feat of all time (so far) would be the venerable Sea Vampire flown by the venerable Eric 'Winkle' Brown. Anyone who has flown the Vamp would know perhaps (if they later were deck landers) what an achievement that was at that time. And a factoid about the TOOM....
F4H carrier suitability McDonnell Aircraft c. Feb 1960
http://aviationarchives.net/F-4H%20C...uitability.pdf
F4H carrier suitability McDonnell Aircraft c. Feb 1960
"...The fleet [F4H Phantom] airplanes - #48 and up - will have greater structural strength, a new and stronger hook, and a correspondingly lower W.O.D...."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 11th Nov 2014 at 15:12.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought I'd add a few points related to an emergency field arrestment hook vs a carrier arresting hook.
In a carrier arrestment, the trap is made with the aircraft essentially still flying and the engine(s) brought to MIL power during arrestment. In an emergency field arrestment the airplane has already landed and has usually slowed considerably with the engine(s) at idle. The forces and dynamics involved in each case are very different. The design is therefore necessarily very different.
With regard to F-35 Sustainability (which includes reliability, maintainability, supportability, and some other factors). The F-35 will be very expensive to sustain. The reliability numbers are not good, with the plane needing LOTS of maintenance, much more than the Hornet. Maintainability is also not as good. Relative to the Hornet the F-35 will require much more maintenance and that maintenance will be significantly more difficult to perform. That's at least partly the price of stealth. Supportability is problematic and the Navy is still struggling with how to resolve that. For example, the F-35's F-135 engine cannot be brought aboard the carrier by the COD bird. So at-sea engine replenishment is going to be a problem. Below decks storage and engine cradles/carts cannot handle the F-135 engine. It's the price the Navy pays for the airplane having one really big engine vs two smaller engines. And its no wonder that USN is planning on having many more Super Hornets in its future air wings than Lightnings
In a carrier arrestment, the trap is made with the aircraft essentially still flying and the engine(s) brought to MIL power during arrestment. In an emergency field arrestment the airplane has already landed and has usually slowed considerably with the engine(s) at idle. The forces and dynamics involved in each case are very different. The design is therefore necessarily very different.
With regard to F-35 Sustainability (which includes reliability, maintainability, supportability, and some other factors). The F-35 will be very expensive to sustain. The reliability numbers are not good, with the plane needing LOTS of maintenance, much more than the Hornet. Maintainability is also not as good. Relative to the Hornet the F-35 will require much more maintenance and that maintenance will be significantly more difficult to perform. That's at least partly the price of stealth. Supportability is problematic and the Navy is still struggling with how to resolve that. For example, the F-35's F-135 engine cannot be brought aboard the carrier by the COD bird. So at-sea engine replenishment is going to be a problem. Below decks storage and engine cradles/carts cannot handle the F-135 engine. It's the price the Navy pays for the airplane having one really big engine vs two smaller engines. And its no wonder that USN is planning on having many more Super Hornets in its future air wings than Lightnings
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV, I'd be a little surprised if the Advanced Super Hornet has more processing power (installed and operating) than the F-35. I was under the impression that the single company funded prototype focussed on the conformal tanks and weapons pod - I'm not aware that they've built a new avionics system as well. If you have any more info on this, please share it, I'd be really interested.
Conformal fuel tanks
Enclosed weapons pod
Next-generation cockpit
Enhanced engine
Internal Infrared Search and Track
The "Next Generation Cockpit" includes new more powerful processors, 11x19 touch screen displays (similar to the F-35), an advanced helmet cueing system, and more. I'll look for some technical details.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Amazing how off track a thread can become but anyway for those willing to read or able to read [for those I post pictures] here is an item about F-35B engine change plans aboard L class ships - I'll guess the USN have been on to this for some time also:
Carrier Analysis Lab Plots Jet Engine Change on L-Class Ships
11 Jan 2011 NAWCAD Lakehurst Public Affairs
Carrier Analysis Lab Plots Jet Engine Change on L-Class Ships | NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation
Carrier Analysis Lab Plots Jet Engine Change on L-Class Ships
11 Jan 2011 NAWCAD Lakehurst Public Affairs
Carrier Analysis Lab Plots Jet Engine Change on L-Class Ships | NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of deck landing feats, you gotta respect the guy (James Flately) that put a C-130 on the Forrestal's deck and the guys who did it with U-2s (from the Ranger?).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8HMPMYL19E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8HMPMYL19E
Last edited by KenV; 11th Nov 2014 at 15:39.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Any deck lander has my respect, especially the USN crew with the HerkyBird "Look Ma Ho Hook" and the U-2 pilots back in the 1960s - there is a long list of course - including any RAFieChapies who have carried out deck landings. Here is the 'six degrees of freedom' cleared flat deck for dem trials and tribs.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV,
Good points on the differences between an emergency land based hook and one designed for carrier landings. All those higher loads drive tons (and I mean tons) of extra metal into the rear end of the airframe.
Engine sustainability - as early as 2001, it was understood (and accepted by all including the USN) that the F135 would not be transportable to sea as a single unit. As a result, P&W came up with a concept whereby the engine would be handled as separate modules, and assembled on board using special handling equipment. (By the way, the F135 is a piece of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) for the F-35 programme).
Below decks storage on both CVNs and LHDs can handle the modules, and the engine assembly and change procedures have already been demonstrated within the required 'maintenance box' specified by the users.
Reliability figures - I would be absolutely astonished if the F-35's reliability figures at this state in its development were anything like the Hornet's, or the Super Hornet's. Maintainability was an area I was involved in with many very experienced people at Fort Worth, with massive input from the USAF, USMC and USN, as well as the RN. It's certainly a challenge on a stealth aircraft, but the team have worked hard to make sure that the normal line operations are all carried out using as few panels and special tools as possible. Is it perfect? Heck, no. Is is operable on board? Yes. It's miles and miles better than an AV-8B, and better in some regards than the F-16.
The point I'm trying to get over here is that the F-35 team have worked damned hard to deliver the best aircraft possible within the requirements set by the customer. In many areas, it is nowhere near as bad as some are trying to make out. They care hugely about sustainability (the KPPs show that) and they know what they are doing when they make their design choices.
I know that's not the perceived wisdom on this thread, but there it is. As always, happy if and when others disagree.
Best Regards to those making supersonic stealth STOVL at sea work,
Engines
Good points on the differences between an emergency land based hook and one designed for carrier landings. All those higher loads drive tons (and I mean tons) of extra metal into the rear end of the airframe.
Engine sustainability - as early as 2001, it was understood (and accepted by all including the USN) that the F135 would not be transportable to sea as a single unit. As a result, P&W came up with a concept whereby the engine would be handled as separate modules, and assembled on board using special handling equipment. (By the way, the F135 is a piece of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) for the F-35 programme).
Below decks storage on both CVNs and LHDs can handle the modules, and the engine assembly and change procedures have already been demonstrated within the required 'maintenance box' specified by the users.
Reliability figures - I would be absolutely astonished if the F-35's reliability figures at this state in its development were anything like the Hornet's, or the Super Hornet's. Maintainability was an area I was involved in with many very experienced people at Fort Worth, with massive input from the USAF, USMC and USN, as well as the RN. It's certainly a challenge on a stealth aircraft, but the team have worked hard to make sure that the normal line operations are all carried out using as few panels and special tools as possible. Is it perfect? Heck, no. Is is operable on board? Yes. It's miles and miles better than an AV-8B, and better in some regards than the F-16.
The point I'm trying to get over here is that the F-35 team have worked damned hard to deliver the best aircraft possible within the requirements set by the customer. In many areas, it is nowhere near as bad as some are trying to make out. They care hugely about sustainability (the KPPs show that) and they know what they are doing when they make their design choices.
I know that's not the perceived wisdom on this thread, but there it is. As always, happy if and when others disagree.
Best Regards to those making supersonic stealth STOVL at sea work,
Engines
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry if I made it appear that sustainability took a back seat during the F-35's development. That was most certainly not the case. The contractor teams worked mightily and inventively to maximize sustainability within the constraints they were given. Stealth was one such constraint. A large airframe with only one engine was another. A single airframe/engine package for CTOL, CATOBAR, and STOVL operations was another. And given all those constraints, the contractors and government came up with some amazing solutions. But the fact remains, all those constraints have a price. And not just in terms of dollars
Putting a "first day of the war" airplane on our carrier decks was important and a huge breakthrough. But USN seems to recognize that a "first day of the war" capability is not required in all their strike assets and has chosen (I believe wisely) to keep lots of non-stealth aircraft in their future strike fleet. And has retained the option of making those non-stealth aircraft more stealthy to make them more "first day of the war" capable. I'm not sure if USAF is doing the same. USAF seems to be totally enamored with stealth and if the airplane does not have stealth, it won't be considered by USAF in the future. I think such reliance on stealth is first off too expensive and second off too risky. It's a matter of when, not a matter of if an adversary will develop a counter to stealth. I think USN's approach of stealth and non stealth with electronc jamming is a better and less risky approach. Again, just my opinion.
Putting a "first day of the war" airplane on our carrier decks was important and a huge breakthrough. But USN seems to recognize that a "first day of the war" capability is not required in all their strike assets and has chosen (I believe wisely) to keep lots of non-stealth aircraft in their future strike fleet. And has retained the option of making those non-stealth aircraft more stealthy to make them more "first day of the war" capable. I'm not sure if USAF is doing the same. USAF seems to be totally enamored with stealth and if the airplane does not have stealth, it won't be considered by USAF in the future. I think such reliance on stealth is first off too expensive and second off too risky. It's a matter of when, not a matter of if an adversary will develop a counter to stealth. I think USN's approach of stealth and non stealth with electronc jamming is a better and less risky approach. Again, just my opinion.
Last edited by KenV; 11th Nov 2014 at 17:07.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines,
You seem to be familiar with some of the customer requirements and design trades done on the F-35. I've got a question. The F-35, like the F-16 and F-22 (all Lockheed products) has a one-piece canopy. This resulted in no canopy bow on the F-16 and F-22. But for some reason, the F-35's canopy has a canopy bow. Do you know why? Is it related to the fact that the F-35 canopy hinges at the front when the others hinge at the rear? Or is it for something else?
You seem to be familiar with some of the customer requirements and design trades done on the F-35. I've got a question. The F-35, like the F-16 and F-22 (all Lockheed products) has a one-piece canopy. This resulted in no canopy bow on the F-16 and F-22. But for some reason, the F-35's canopy has a canopy bow. Do you know why? Is it related to the fact that the F-35 canopy hinges at the front when the others hinge at the rear? Or is it for something else?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
I believe 'Engines' has answered the canopy question in this other thread answer about canopies here (and answers also around this particular one): http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post8597570
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 11th Nov 2014 at 18:59. Reason: Clear that LINK is to ANSWER by 'Engines'
Ah, but don't forget that whilst the C does indeed have more fuel and goes further than the other variants - we couldn't possibly buy it because we tried to buy it once so a re-attack would make us look stupid and we would have to admit that wheel equipped naval jets were able to operate from surfaces other than boats. And in any case the A model is the Air Force variant so we need to buy that because we're an Air Force. Also it doesn't have a probe so we could spend more money fitting one, or fitting a boom to Voyager - whichever works out more expensive.
All things considered, I do now think a mixed fleet of Bs and Cs is probably the best suited to our requirements (the lack of a probe being the A's biggest handicap), but as has been said I don't see how the government could perform the double U-turn necessary to get it.