|
rather than judge and criticise. You are already appearing to be an all to familiar troll. |
"...inaccurate Navy-supplied wire dynamics model..." repeated
Anyone here able to comment further please on this bit of info, already posted here earlier [ http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7849076 ] and repeated below for convenience? Thanks:
["...inaccurate Navy-supplied wire dynamics model..."] The day of the unmanned aircraft. By Dave Majumdar on May 15, 2013 The day of the unmanned aircraft. - The DEW Line "...However, the X-47B did not carry out an arrested landing upon returning to Pax River. That could be because the unmanned jet was having difficulty making even that first trap it did the week before where the Navy showed off a video of the aircraft snagging a wire. Sources told the DEW Line, at the time of the earlier trap, the aircraft now had a 10 percent field boarding rate... So hopefully, this isn't an indication of a major problem. The X-47B guys have had to redesign their tail hook a number of times now due to the same inaccurate Navy-supplied wire dynamics model that was partly responsible for the F-35C's woes...." |
This is totally off the top of my head, Spaz, but I can't help thinking that it's the same problem with the short distance between the main gear and the hook. At least in part. Would you think that's part of the issue?
|
X-47B / F-35C inaccurate data wire dynamics USN supplied
I would have thought the 'other hook factors', not mentioned in the Majumdar quote above, have been well discussed/investigated/fixed by now. I have info on the X-47B hook fix (not a lot of detail - I'm not a current fast jet pilot; nor involved in either programs under discussion; nor apparently a '30 year journalist' etc....). It is the phrase: "...inaccurate Navy-supplied wire dynamics model..." that is of particular interest to me. Does anyone here know about the inaccuracies in this model and how that has affected both programs? Thanks.
As a casual reader may have gleaned from my posts I'm very much interested in all aspects of fixed wing Naval Aviation from olden tymes until today; and of course the possible future (from my previous golden experience in the RAN FAA with A4G back in the early 1970s). ___________________________ Fleet Readiness Center “hooks up” unmanned aircraft 05 Sept 2012 Fleet Readiness Center ?hooks up? unmanned aircraft | NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation “...To land on the flight deck of a carrier, aircraft need a tailhook to catch one of four arresting wires. When unsuccessful roll-in arrestment tests of the X-47B revealed the need for a modified hook point, the team needed to come up with a plan to make the modifications in order to perform arrested landings and catapult launches this fall.... ...Since then, the X-47B successfully engaged the arresting gear with the redesigned hook point during three separate roll-in arrestment tests....” _______________________ “The X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) demonstrator aircraft completes a successful roll-in arrestment with a modified arresting hook point designed and manufactured by Fleet Readiness Center Southwest (FRD-SW) Aug.14 [2012] at Patuxent River, Md. FRCSW delivered the hook point just 46 days after receiving a request from the Navy UCAS program office.” http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploa...GCTV_Still.JPG Compilation of above photo + still from a video mentioned on X-47B thread I think. Click thumbnail for big pic: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...pilationX2.jpg |
I have seen a lot of stuff about low trap rates on the X-47B, but not sure whether it was related to the current hook shape or to traps before last year's tip redesign. Navy people this week were pretty specific as to what remains to be done and why arrests were not on the cards in this at-sea periods.
Anyway, the issue should be resolved by the end of the summer, because if they're going to do arrests they have to do them before the $ run out. And better a problem on a $1.5 bn X-plane than on an SDD/procurement project burning $XX billion per year. Oh BTW, I don't understand why anyone's rabbiting on about POGO bias. They're a leak path for government documents, and very useful ones at that. The QLR and training readiness reports are Pentagon products. And we're starting to need some Troll-B-Gone around here... |
Navy Rapidly Replaces X-47B Tailhook after Test Failure : The Lexington Park Leader
The Navy has been able to fix it faster, with less red tape and testing because there are fewer safety issues with a man out of the machine. |
Thanks for the extra detail post (similar to Press Release earlier). And here is another similar story with also extra detail not in the others:
NAVAIR - Naval Air Systems Command (via noodls) / FRCSW Innovation Solves Navy UAV Problem I guess I'm astonished that the USN does not have good "wire dynamics model"(s). I'll guess that is something being worked on now; or is it just too difficult to model wire behaviour accurately enough? Perhaps that is the issue - which makes practical testing the only way forward it seems. |
Originally Posted by Mach Two
No one said POGO were unbiased, the only comment I saw here was CMil's judgement on two reports, nothing to do with the organisations or people that wrote them.
Originally Posted by Engines
The recent 'Quick Look' report (also called the 'Ahern' report after its senior author) can be found via the 'POGO' (Progress on Government Oversight') website. That gave an accurate, unbiased view of the state of the programme.
|
No, GK. Both Engines and I said the report was unbiased, not that POGO are unbiased. As LO said, the report originated in officialdom.
|
Either way, thank you engines. :ok:
|
F-35 section Oz DoD Annual Report 2011-12 [16 May 2013]
Lots of 'good/bad' sotospeak in this latest Oz Federal Parliament report. For me the 'good news' is that HMDS III is under development and from the RAAF viewpoint HMDS II is 'good enough' but RAAF will be getting HMDS III. Of course there is a lot more about software and other issues with an estimation on price URF $82-3 million Oz dollars but too much to summarise here - so go read it.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade - 16/05/2013 - Department of Defence annual report 2011-12 ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 16/05/2013 : Department of Defence annual report 2011-12 Beware the 'helmut' - this alternate spelling must refer to HMDS III :E :} A 0.3Mb PDF of entire proceedings may be downloaded here however this URL may not work after a time [the first half of the PDF is not about F-35 matters]: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...hal%20Brown%22 Some 'extra sauce' for those not interested in Oz perspective would be this quote about price: "...There is now strong alignment between the aircraft acquisition cost estimates from the independent US Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Office, the US F-35A Joint Program Office, and the Australian New Air Combat Capability Project Office. However, the aircraft costs are sensitive to US and partner nation purchase profiles. The actual costs for each successive low-rate initial production lot continue to be below the US congressional estimates. Our first two aircraft are expected to be around, or less than, the $130 million estimate that Defence has had since before 2011. Overall, in 2012 dollars and exchange rate at A$1.03 to US dollars, 72 F35As are expected to cost an average of A$83.0 million—unit recurring flyaway cost—if ordered in the 2018-19 to 2023-24 time frame. The latest official US congressional F-35A cost estimates, sourced from the publicly available Selected Acquisition Report of 2011, are consistent with the Australian estimates and indicate the cost of the F-35A—unit recurring flyaway cost—reducing from a price of about $130 million in US then dollars for aircraft delivered in 2014 reducing over time down to about $82 million in US then dollars for aircraft delivered in the 2020 time frame...." |
The "helmut" is the alternate design from EADS-Germany.
HMDS III, unless I am much mistaken, is the desired "end-state" in which the original and much tweaked VSI Magic Hat is induced to meet spec. HMDS II is the BAE Systems alternate, which has a better chance of working sometime soon but does not do everything required. Ironically, developments in electronics and optics since this whole thing started now make it possible to combine a panoramic head-down "big picture" display with a HUD, which would have made life much easier for the helmet designers. |
The RAAF has already tried to buy the Raptor but was blocked by the US |
I think I will change my forum name to 'Patchy' - it's a goodun'. :)
|
I could try "SlaughterChops". It seems to impress the Walts.
|
I could try "SlaughterChops". It seems to impress the Walts. Full disclosure: Sweetman is a personal friend and former co-worker at Jane's. As a military technology journalist, I have great respect for his vast and detailed knowledge of weapon systems of all kinds. But Sweetman himself would tell you he approaches F-35 coverage unlike other journalists. I see my role as simply to report the facts offered by both critics and supporters, allowing my readers to draw their own conclusions. Sweetman approaches F-35 coverage from the standpoint of an analyst who has empirically concluded the program is a flop. That position is always going to create a tension with his traditional role as journalist. yes thats called a bias. |
Ooh that is a nice touch Mr Sweetman ?
I wonder what Paul Beaver thinks ? Nice chap I thought, when I met him. Take away Chinese kooky boy ? http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...h_1797557b.jpg |
Another, slightly strange post there KF. As a member here for a while, I wouldn't have said that LO is famed for (what was your phrase?) 'pedantic rants'. Makes me wonder if you're not such a new-comer to the forum, but rather one that's been here, but, for some reason, has had posting privilidges temporarily withdrawn and has decided to come back in another guise and ty to throw your weight around a bit whilst disrupting the conversation rather than adding to it.
Do keep up the good work.:mad: |
Curious how among all this schoolboy bickering about whether the F-35 is either the next miracle for Aviation or another gaping Black Hole for the taxpayer, nobody seems able to discuss what will be the only validation of the F-35 Program’s worth. That would be the threat. The F-22 has virtually dominated the category of "largely irrelevant" due to a lack of opportunities to display all that shiny new technology. Now some might argue it's because we have the technology that no-one takes a direct run at us, but the F-35 will be in a similar position. As a consequence of its lack of “pedigree”, every single problem with that aircraft is hailed as incontrovertible evidence that the Program is an unmitigated disaster.
If we end up supporting air ops over the South China Sea (to successfully repel hordes of advanced Chinese fighters on their way to Taipei) soon after the F-35 passes Operational acceptance, everyone in the "Yay" camp can give themselves a richly deserved pat on the back. If, conversely, the first half a dozen USMC aircraft are sabotaged or destroyed on the ground in some dusty hell-hole by insurgents armed with RPG-7's and headscarves, we might want to consider what they were doing there in the first place while the “Nay” camp hold a round of celebratory parties in DC under the theme of, "see - I told you so”. There are a myriad of scenarios between the end points of the spectrums listed above that will either kill or cure the perception of the F-35 as a plane for every occasion. Until we know what that combat testing ground is, the arguments for and against it are vacuous at best and completely partisan at worst. Air power is all things to all men, but today the bottom line is the cost. If you can't justify LO technology or a BVRAAM because the guys you are fighting are throwing fireworks and rocks at you, you might have some explaining to do. If, on the other hand, all those gizmos and whizzbangs are not enough to defeat adversaries who can afford to lose 50 aircraft at a time, again you might have some explaining to do. Whatever happens, only when Governments and taxpayers have conclusive evidence of just what all that money got spent on will they be able to decide whether it is the Holy Grail or another White Elephant. |
VIDEO First F-35B Vertical Takeoff Test 10 May 2013
First F-35B Vertical Takeoff Test
"Published on May 20, 2013 An F-35B test aircraft completes the first-ever vertical takeoff (VTO) at NAS Patuxent River, Md., on May 10, 2013. While not a capability used in combat, VTOs are required for repositioning of the STOVL in environments where a jet could not perform a short takeoff. In these cases, the jet, with a limited amount of fuel, would execute a VTO to travel a short distance." First F-35B Vertical Takeoff Test - YouTube |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:11. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.