The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[sferrin]

Spud - I missed all the people who were saying it would melt the deck. Could you enlighten us?

:

 

[AeroFranz]

First off - really impressive seeing the short takeoffs, even without the rock-out music that every manufacturer deems mandatory in its promos

Second, I don't know if the exhaust temperature melts or not the flight deck. It hasn't yet - that much we know. But we have to wait for multiple, repeated vertical landings (hundreds) at max bring-back weight to see if an F-35 can reliably operate off that deck. Short takeoffs and VTO at light weights (I ddon't know how heavy the birds were in these tests - i guess you start off light) are not representative of combat operations. I think right now all we can say is "so far, so good".

 

[sublight]

DARPA was the originator of the "F35 melt the deck" discussion: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=3dd58541e45363810332fae38d1008bf&tab=core&_cview=1

 

[Mike Pryce]

I think the 'buckling deck' was due to the prolonged running of the Osprey engines while loading with troops etc.

For STOVL fighters things are likely to be more transitory, albeit more energetic. The 'dwell time' matters regarding the type of possible damage as well as the temperature/velocities etc. It may be 'scabbing of coatings' that is an issue, or noise, or jet blast blowing the deck crew overboard etc. in the F-35s case.

In the UK testing of these matters has been going on since the 1980s, first at Shoeburynees on (or rather, under) a Harrier suspended from a gantry, and for the last 20 years at BAE Warton using a special test rig.

An article on the latter for JSF can be found here:

https://www.corrdefense.org/Technical%20Papers/Investigation%20of%20Non%20Traditional%20Non%20Skid%20Technologies%20for%20the%20US%20Navy.pdf

The key issue, as with much in STOVL, is that the real world never accords to models and the proof of the pudding is often in the eating. Hence the Wasp trials. Of course, explaining to Congress that 'we don't know, we need $$$ to try and may fail' is a tough ask!

 

[Deino]

Also available much LAAAAARGER !

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/6238184678/sizes/l/in/photostream/

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The "melt the deck" problem is not exactly a new one, Harriers had the same problem. Just build better decks, When an airstrip, taxi way, or aircraft carrier can't handle the latest generation of aircraft, we don't scrap the aircraft, we improve the airstrip, taxiway, or ship Imagine if post world war II they said "high performance aircraft are impossible because of the limits of the ship." and just left it at that, Corsairs into the 21st century!

Its a relatively minor thing.

 

[LowObservable]

The problem still in work is fatigue caused by repeated heating.

It's not insoluble, nor is it inevitable, and ONR appears to be working on ways to manage the problem without cutting into steel part-way through the ship's life, should it be an issue.

However, to call it "fearmongering" is tendentious and misleading.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I wonder if they'll look at embedded or overlaid thermoelectric cooling elements as part of the solution?

 

[sublight]

I'd worry more about the airframe buckling than I would the deck below me..... http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/senators-love-stealth-jet/

 

[sferrin]

I'd worry more about the airframe buckling than I would the deck below me..... http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/senators-love-stealth-jet/

Just another individual who needs to be educated in the purpose of testing. :

 

[sublight]

I'd worry more about the airframe buckling than I would the deck below me..... http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/senators-love-stealth-jet/

Just another individual who needs to be educated in the purpose of testing. :

Fanboy much?

 

[sferrin]

I'd worry more about the airframe buckling than I would the deck below me..... http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/senators-love-stealth-jet/

Just another individual who needs to be educated in the purpose of testing. :

Fanboy much?

Strike a nerve did I?

 

[RyanC]

I still remain skeptical that the F-35 will actually enter service in the numbers claimed. The program has enough supporters that it won't totally die out; but a massacre of the numbers and at least one variant is a very high probability.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I still remain skeptical that the F-35 will actually enter service in the numbers claimed. The program has enough supporters that it won't totally die out; but a massacre of the numbers and at least one variant is a very high probability.

This is what happens when only three out of nine partners (Aus, Can, Nor) aren't in a state of financial crisis when it comes time to actually buy production aircraft.

For the sake of crisis response would be interesting to see what would happen if the USN cancelled their buy of F-35Cs so as to use this money to keep ships. What would the UK do? Go back to F-35B, acquire Super Hornets or Rafales or get out of the carrier business altogether? I would imagine the first option is more likely no matter how ridiculous this makes the CVF construction schedule look.

 

[SpudmanWP]

I'd worry more about the airframe buckling than I would the deck below me..... http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/senators-love-stealth-jet/

A crack in one spar (that will be fixed) does not a buckling airframe make.

 

[RyanC]

For the sake of crisis response would be interesting to see what would happen if the USN cancelled their buy of F-35Cs so as to use this money to keep ships.

I think the F-35C is the untouchable one. The USAF has it's F-22 for stealthyness, so there's not as a burning need for the F-35A; the USMC...the faster it gets out of the VTOL business, the better for everyone (except Marine prestige); and the USN sorely needs some sort of stealth strike aircraft to put on it's decks.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think the F-35C is the untouchable one. The USAF has it's F-22 for stealthyness, so there's not as a burning need for the F-35A; the USMC...the faster it gets out of the VTOL business, the better for everyone (except Marine prestige); and the USN sorely needs some sort of stealth strike aircraft to put on it's decks.

But you’re basing your assessment in things that YOU think is important. But you’re not the person buying the F-35. USAF, USN, USMC and the partner nation air forces and navies are. What is important to them is what we need to consider.

USAF needs 2,000 new aircraft or has to scrap 80% of its TACAIR fleet in the next 10-20 years. Same goes for most partner nations who also don’t have an F-22 or B-2 and really, really want (insert picture of one of those squirrels or Scott’s cats here) to have a stealthy asset. The USMC is in the STOVL business and you’re just as likely to get them out of it as you are to have them give up amphibious assaults.

The only US service that has an ongoing TACAIR program that uses the same technology of mission systems as the F-35 is the USN (Block II Super Hornet). They also have a stealthy UAV trials program (UCAS-D) and potentially stealthy UAV acquisition program (UCLASS). They also have a strong need to find money to keep ships in the budget including carriers.

Since they need money to pay for the platform the aircraft will fly from and have alternatives they are the most likely service to give up their F-35. USAF and the USMC don’t have such an accessible alternative nor do they face a significant, core to service, competitor for the F-35 funds.

 

[RyanC]

But you’re basing your assessment in things that YOU think is important.

Let me rephrase. The F-35A does not fill any roles that could not be filled by the F-35C variant.

The utility of the mission the -35B ostensibly exists for is becoming more dubious with each passing year.

A squadron of 12 on an amphib ship (figure it's actually eight actually flyable at any one time) isn't enough to gain dominance against anything more credible than a third world military; given how much fleet air defenses have been upgraded over the last 10-15 years around the world.

And if it's utility is best against a third world military; then a Sea Reapers flying off an Amphib would fulfill the "blow up people in Hiluxes" role just as well (and cheaper).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Let me rephrase. The F-35A does not fill any roles that could not be filled by the F-35C variant.

Using that same rationale there the F-35C does not fill any roles that could not be filled by the F-35B. It can fly from and land onto a CATOBAR carrier too…

As to the idea that USAF could just buy F-35Cs rather than their cheaper F-35A I would like to see how that idea goes in any meeting anyone proposes it in. The RAAF was pitched the longer legged F-35C over the F-35A and even one piece F-35C wings on the F-35A fuselage and said no to it comprehensively.

The utility of the mission the -35B ostensibly exists for is becoming more dubious with each passing year.

A squadron of 12 on an amphib ship (figure it's actually eight actually flyable at any one time) isn't enough to gain dominance against anything more credible than a third world military; given how much fleet air defenses have been upgraded over the last 10-15 years around the world.

And if it's utility is best against a third world military; then a Sea Reapers flying off an Amphib would fulfill the "blow up people in Hiluxes" role just as well (and cheaper).

“Tell it to the Marines!” But seriously the USMC strongly disagree and I don’t see any strong push coming from Congress or the Executive to change their minds. Which makes any such discussion academic.

 

[sferrin]

For the sake of crisis response would be interesting to see what would happen if the USN cancelled their buy of F-35Cs so as to use this money to keep ships.

I think the F-35C is the untouchable one. The USAF has it's F-22 for stealthyness, so there's not as a burning need for the F-35A; the USMC...the faster it gets out of the VTOL business, the better for everyone (except Marine prestige); and the USN sorely needs some sort of stealth strike aircraft to put on it's decks.

Scratch off 11 fixed wing capable aircraft carriers at a stroke? Doesn't seem wise to me.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Scratch off 11 fixed wing capable aircraft carriers at a stroke? Doesn't seem wise to me.

Do you think that cancelling the F-35C would result in such an outcome? (Hard to tell from your response.) If so that is completely crazy. While it is possible that the USN could buy F-35Bs and fly them in place of F-35Cs from their carriers this is very unlikely. A more likely event would just be further Super Hornet buys to replace the high time Hornets and the UCLASS program fielding a X-45/X-47 style UCAV. Regardless the USN certainly wouldn't be throwing away 11 carriers and 10 air wings just because it wouldn't be getting 240 new aircraft.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Articles on the Wasp tests:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/10/dn-marine-corps-demonstrates-f35b-at-sea-101811/

http://defense.aol.com/2011/10/18/f-35b-sea-trials-showcase-promising-results/

 

[sferrin]

Scratch off 11 fixed wing capable aircraft carriers at a stroke? Doesn't seem wise to me.

Do you think that cancelling the F-35C would result in such an outcome? (Hard to tell from your response.) If so that is completely crazy. While it is possible that the USN could buy F-35Bs and fly them in place of F-35Cs from their carriers this is very unlikely. A more likely event would just be further Super Hornet buys to replace the high time Hornets and the UCLASS program fielding a X-45/X-47 style UCAV. Regardless the USN certainly wouldn't be throwing away 11 carriers and 10 air wings just because it wouldn't be getting 240 new aircraft.

Nah, I was referring to cancellation of the B's. I don't think many appreciate the amount of flexibility the B's on amphibious assault ships gives the USN. It will be even more important when (not if) they start mothballing CVNs.

 

[fightingirish]

2 F-35Bs takeoff and land from USS WASP
Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVj4vC81Ea4

 

[Mike Pryce]

Takeoff video, with the added bonus of not having a backing track of naff music, just jet sounds:

http://www.5min.com/Video/F-35B-Short-Takeoff-517182997


Lower res version from YouTube:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu7ZUVXs6Ec

 

[pathology_doc]

Imagine if post world war II they said "high performance aircraft are impossible because of the limits of the ship." and just left it at that, Corsairs into the 21st century!

;D "The F4U-26 has the latest in NASA wing sections, supercritical-section paddle blade propellers and advanced engine metallurgy for 28lb boost with 175-octane fuel. Podded radar on the right wing provides targeting data for AMRAAM, of which two (or four AIM-9X) can be carried in addition to four high-velocity 20mm cannon with 150rpg."

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Greetings All -

What every 737 should look like

http://www.ebay.com/itm/F-35-joint-Strike-Fighter-Boeing-737-300-CATBird-Desk-Top-Display-Model-RTM-/350499648497?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item519b6833f1

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Avimimus]

;D

 

[AAAdrone]

Imagine if post world war II they said "high performance aircraft are impossible because of the limits of the ship." and just left it at that, Corsairs into the 21st century!

;D "The F4U-26 has the latest in NASA wing sections, supercritical-section paddle blade propellers and advanced engine metallurgy for 28lb boost with 175-octane fuel. Podded radar on the right wing provides targeting data for AMRAAM, of which two (or four AIM-9X) can be carried in addition to four high-velocity 20mm cannon with 150rpg."

Someone needs to photoshop that so I can laugh my a$# off. Will it come with JHMCS? ;D

 

[aim9xray]

;D "The F4U-26 has the latest in NASA wing sections, supercritical-section paddle blade propellers and advanced engine metallurgy for 28lb boost with 175-octane fuel. Podded radar on the right wing provides targeting data for AMRAAM, of which two (or four AIM-9X) can be carried in addition to four high-velocity 20mm cannon with 150rpg."

Good God, man, that sounds like it was directly lifted from the Stavr -- er, that is, the site that can not be mentioned!

 

[Deino]

 

[dannydale]

Imagine if post world war II they said "high performance aircraft are impossible because of the limits of the ship." and just left it at that, Corsairs into the 21st century!

;D "The F4U-26 has the latest in NASA wing sections, supercritical-section paddle blade propellers and advanced engine metallurgy for 28lb boost with 175-octane fuel. Podded radar on the right wing provides targeting data for AMRAAM, of which two (or four AIM-9X) can be carried in addition to four high-velocity 20mm cannon with 150rpg."

You forgot the part about contrarotating propellers with scimitar blades and an M-Wing planform lifted from the FW190.

 

[Mike Pryce]

I remember reading an article in the late 1980s, by Bill Sweetman in Interavia IIRC, that the USMC planned to be all V/STOL by 2015. I was a kid at the time and that seemed like a ridiculously long time in the future.

However, it seems it is finally on the cards.

From http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/futureusmcaviationsldinfo_151.jpg

 

[pathology_doc]

Imagine if post world war II they said "high performance aircraft are impossible because of the limits of the ship." and just left it at that, Corsairs into the 21st century!

;D "The F4U-26 has the latest in NASA wing sections, supercritical-section paddle blade propellers and advanced engine metallurgy for 28lb boost with 175-octane fuel. Podded radar on the right wing provides targeting data for AMRAAM, of which two (or four AIM-9X) can be carried in addition to four high-velocity 20mm cannon with 150rpg."

You forgot the part about contrarotating propellers with scimitar blades and an M-Wing planform lifted from the FW190.

But the link shows the M wing to have failed. Besides, the Corsair has an upside-down M wing when viewed from the front. But I will sweep the tips on the prop. (Besides which, contrarotating propellers and in-service aircraft seem not to have been an American thing.)

 

[Mike Pryce]

Moderators - can all this 'F4U-26' stuff go in another thread? This one is supposed to be about the F-35.

 

[pathology_doc]

Don't worry; it's over now.

Getting back to business: at the end of the day, is the poor bloody F-35 in all its forms guaranteed a career at last? Or is the threat of cancellation still hanging over the head of supersonic VTOL?

Sucks to be a project manager in charge of a ground-breaking tech project. And the politicians who voted the money.

 

[hesham]

Hi,


from Flightglobal site;


http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2003/2003%20-%202650.html

 

[unclejim]

See this bird at Van Nuys Airport.

 

[AAAdrone]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/11/03/the-air-forces-future-fears/#ixzz1cee0mQdl

"And although the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps say they’re waiting on a new integrated schedule to codify the official future of the F-35, Carlisle admitted Wednesday the Air Force already knows its date for initial operating capability will probably slip from 2016 to 2018."

I wonder what this will spell for the Navy and Marine Corps.? Also what about the non-US customers? Will they slip their IOC dates to the mid-2020's?

 

[pathology_doc]

I suspect the Brits may wind up de-mothballing the Harrier fleet for a while. They should.