Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 42 of 44 FirstFirst ... 3238394041424344 LastLast
Results 1,231 to 1,260 of 1298

Thread: Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread

  1. #1231
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by LowObservable View Post
    Re: Austere landings - 2 free internetz awarded to anyone producing a pic of an F-35B doing an ashore VL on anything other than concrete protected by AM-2.
    Nice loaded question there LO, you know it has not happened and more than ever likely will not happen, the point is it can if needed. Although I would not doubt that some time in the future the Marines will practice it

  2. #1232
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,984
    Oh dear.

    Tell me, when have Harriers operating from land bases used VL? Since when has it been necessary to use VL for operating from austere bases? You strongly implied that it was not possible for F-35B to operate from austere land bases because it couldn't land vertically at them. Now you're using different arguments, none of which disqualify F-35B from austere land basing.

    Note that other fast jets, which have no possibility of performing a vertical landing, routinely operate from single runway bases.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  3. #1233
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    3,072
    all of this quibbling to one side,

    I recently had the opportunity to watch some F35B footage on Youtube with my 20 month old.

    He particularly liked the LM movie of the trails on USS Wasp.

    As for Daddy, all he has to say on the subject is....

    Yum Yum!

    Can anyone clear up the issue of weapons bring back concerns with an F35B landing on the deck of a CVF please? I haven't any hard facts, just third hand reports of reporter's opinions....

  4. #1234
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmalaya View Post
    all of this quibbling to one side,

    Can anyone clear up the issue of weapons bring back concerns with an F35B landing on the deck of a CVF please? I haven't any hard facts, just third hand reports of reporter's opinions....
    There are no-hard facts as such as those won't come to light until further into the trials. The computers will predict one thing, the PR people will say another, the douubters will question such claims, and its up to the flight test engineers to test and evaluate performacne & loads to calculate what the true figures will be.

    We'll just have to wait until they do those trials, which should be in the next year or so as they will be lining up for the next step of proper Sea Trials.

  5. #1235
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    710
    Aussie/Swerve - So if RVL/STOL will be the norm on austere surfaces (defined as what? Anything other than US air base concrete protected by an AM-2 heat/blast-shield?) does anyone know when it will be tested and practiced? And what kind of landing guidance will be used in adverse conditions?

    It would also be ironic, given the amount of trouble taken to avoid hot-gas ingestion in VL, if the standard recovery mode were to be RVL or VL on a moving ship.

    MrMalaya - Your answer will be found on Pprune, but basically the UK has a "Persian Gulf hot day" standard that is hotter than the KPP spec.

  6. #1236
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,549
    Its been years, but when I visited VMA-223 the standard practice for all USMC AV-8Bs was RVL with 20-30 knot forward speed. RVL avoids loss of lift due to plume ingestion and reduces engine FOD kicked up by the plume. I do not see why RVLs would be discontinued with F-35B.

  7. #1237
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    710
    It does raise the interesting question as to why RVL, rather than VL, was not made the basis for the requirement. Particularly since HGI was one of the main problems with the Boeing design.

  8. #1238
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,549
    Folks from the Procurement world and Operations world often fail to see things eye-to-eye. NAVAIR has a long history of generating requirements that contradict current doctrine. While OPNAV drags its feet when new technology is introduced.

    "235 years of naval tradition, unimpeded by progress".

  9. #1239
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmalaya View Post
    can anyone clear up the issue of weapons bring back concerns with an F35B landing on the deck of a CVF please? I haven't any hard facts, just third hand reports of reporter's opinions....
    The real facts you will not find published, you will only find lots of guessing by armchair engineers in the know

    But of course it will have certain restrictions on landing loads, same as any other aircraft in the world, funny that, it not just an issue surrounding the JSF, but any other aircraft, military or civil. If the aircraft is coming back with too much weight they will do the same as everyone else, dump fuel or just jetison munitions to come within the guidelines. Something that has never been an issue previously.

    As to HGI, there has (that I am aware of ?) only been one incidence with the B, and that occured during the X phase of the program. It occured over the hover pit, and after much analysis it was the actual pit itself that caused the HGI incident. This has not occured since, and not likely thanks to the lift fan, further testing has show that the lift fan, thanks to the fact that it is not direct engine flow lift actually provides a curtain potecting the front of the plane from the hot gas outflow of the main engine

  10. #1240
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    3,072

    RR gets lift system contract

    Flight Global article detailing new contract for RR lift system- 32 of which have now been delivered:

    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-f-35b-371306/

  11. #1241
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    84
    F-35B lift fan underside

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockhee...n/photostream/


    F-35B door mounted missile station w/ AMRAAM

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockhee...n/photostream/


    btw/
    USMC AV-8 harriers operating from a austere FOB in Afgnanistan
    http://youtu.be/hLUZARGNzJ4

  12. #1242
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
    The real facts you will not find published, you will only find lots of guessing by armchair engineers in the know
    ...
    well... just like the landing hook problems, development schedule precision, budget envelope compliancy... if it wasn't for those pesky armchair engineers guessing, the F-35s would've been breezing out of assembly lines by now...

  13. #1243
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    well... just like the landing hook problems, development schedule precision, budget envelope compliancy... if it wasn't for those pesky armchair engineers guessing, the F-35s would've been breezing out of assembly lines by now...
    Don't deny those problems, never have What I am pointing out is that people try to make issues out of things that apply to most aircraft and try to make them JSF specific.

    Give me an engineering problem and 15 engineer's and I will show you 15 different solutions to the same problem, these issues are inherent in any program

  14. #1244
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
    Don't deny those problems, never have What I am pointing out is that people try to make issues out of things that apply to most aircraft and try to make them JSF specific.

    Give me an engineering problem and 15 engineer's and I will show you 15 different solutions to the same problem, these issues are inherent in any program
    Ah but with the JSF that is the crux of the problem, we had all the LM BS saying how it would all be different with the F-35, they wouldn't make those mistakes, what minor defects not picked up by the Computers would be quickly rectified in the first few LRIP so they didn't need to go to a prototype YF-35 after the X-35 demonstrator and could gear up for producation ASAP.

    Engineering issues were expected by the pundits and engineers who questioned LM's policy, and would you believe it they have been proven right in most cases.

    It will probably turn out to be an OK aircraft and a regular workhorse of many armed forces, but LM's short cuts will have cost the program and customers much more than was ever saved in the first place

  15. #1245
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    507
    I see Australia are deferring ordering their first batch of 12 aircraft by a couple of years.

    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-years-371402/

  16. #1246
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff_B View Post
    I see Australia are deferring ordering their first batch of 12 aircraft by a couple of years.

    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-years-371402/
    Sounds like acceptance of the inevitable following the recent US DoD rebaselining of the project.

  17. #1247
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    199
    Australia's deferment has zip to do with the JSF or the program, it is all about domestic politics and a very desperate government who have sent the country broke in less than six years clutching at straws to save their rear ends

  18. #1248
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff_B View Post
    Ah but with the JSF that is the crux of the problem, we had all the LM BS saying how it would all be different with the F-35, they wouldn't make those mistakes, what minor defects not picked up by the Computers would be quickly rectified in the first few LRIP so they didn't need to go to a prototype YF-35 after the X-35 demonstrator and could gear up for producation ASAP.

    Engineering issues were expected by the pundits and engineers who questioned LM's policy, and would you believe it they have been proven right in most cases.

    It will probably turn out to be an OK aircraft and a regular workhorse of many armed forces, but LM's short cuts will have cost the program and customers much more than was ever saved in the first place
    Show me the history of any other program that has not ?

    As for the Engineering part, you have just proven my point ! Give me an engineering problem and 15 engineers and I will give you 15 different solutions to the issue. So no matter what the company does, and the JSF is not the only one to have critisism of engineering decisions, there will be engineers and a whole raft of people who will say "why the hell did they do that" So once again this is not a JSF Specific issue.

    I will also point out again, I am not denying they have issues, I just have an issue that people try to portray anything they can use in a negative vein about the JSF, and make it sound like it has only ever happened to that aircraft

  19. #1249
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    3,072
    I agree with you to an extent and I think that as more aircraft get airborne the less we will hear about things.

    There is a massive US based reaction to this program because its totemic and symptomatic of poor defence planning, compromises the ideals of naval/marine and airforce champions (and LM have struggled to meet their promises), but the aircraft will be more than capable and I feel that its as much a political/ideological reaction to what the JSF stands for as much as engineering issues.

    Of course I would prefer the UK to have come up with its own solution, but the aircraft we will get will offer so much more than we are used to that I think it matters less...
    Last edited by mrmalaya; 3rd May 2012 at 10:50.

  20. #1250
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    5,341
    Quote Originally Posted by aussienscale
    The real facts you will not find published, you will only find lots of guessing by armchair engineers in the know
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f
    well... just like the landing hook problems, development schedule precision, budget envelope compliancy... if it wasn't for those pesky armchair engineers guessing, the F-35s would've been breezing out of assembly lines by now...
    A: the landing hook is a non-issue, just about any briefed engineer having a look can solve that.
    B: The acceleration issue from transonic speed is not solvable without either a major re-design, or a more powerful engine,
    ...or more likely: a re-evaluation that in the end declare that, performance was never of importance, a'la SH statement in it's day
    (just insert F-35 instead of SH and you get the drift)
    In 1998 — as it became clear that the Super Hornet was slower, and less agile at transonic speeds than the C/D
    — the Navy issued an “administrative clarification” which declared that
    speed, acceleration and sustained turn rate were not, and had never been,
    Key Performance Parameters (KPP) for the Super Hornet.
    Apparently, some misguided people thought that those were important attributes for a fighter.
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  21. #1251
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    3,072
    Although a new engine is far from an impossibility over the course of the next 30 years is it?

  22. #1252
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,853
    @obligatory

    you seem to forget what the hook problem is. they'll try to correct it by reshaping the hook head, but if it's still too close to the main gear, they'll have to find a way to either:

    - significantly lenghten the hook (while it will create other problrms like hook resistance to efforts, hook fixation changes to allow it to be retracted (not much fuselage left behind), and so on

    - modify the hook placement which would require a major set of modifications in the rear fuselage structure i.e. a heavy and costly redesign of the aircraft (that redesign meaning different structure, meaning, in turn, different parts, weight balance, FBW programming, etc, etc...)

  23. #1253
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    113
    it seems to me that F-35's canopy is fairly large from the side view. does it contribute to a lot of RCS or is there RAM on it?

  24. #1254
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Thornado View Post
    it seems to me that F-35's canopy is fairly large from the side view. does it contribute to a lot of RCS or is there RAM on it?
    Not exactly "RAM".
    This is a very, very simplistic explanation, but the canopy is treated in such a way that it deflects radar waves (they dont cross it).
    From the radar waves perspective such a canopy behaves very much in the same way that the rest of the airframe.

  25. #1255
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    5,341
    Gold is being used for canopy treatment, it is still a source of reflection,
    but not anywhere near as bad as the cacophony of the cockpit would create
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  26. #1256
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
    Australia's deferment has zip to do with the JSF or the program, it is all about domestic politics and a very desperate government who have sent the country broke in less than six years clutching at straws to save their rear ends
    well $4b is cut. and half of the cuts coming from JSF. I can only forsee Austallia buying JSF in small quanities of one or two a year. and that $40b Submarine programme will not see first Sub before 2025.
    Australlia has joined Norway/Saudi resource based economy with complete dependence on external suppliers.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226346325432
    Budget 2012 $4bn stripped from Defence

  27. #1257
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,113
    One or two a year???

    That would take > 50 years to get their 100.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  28. #1258
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    well $4b is cut. and half of the cuts coming from JSF. I can only forsee Austallia buying JSF in small quanities of one or two a year. and that $40b Submarine programme will not see first Sub before 2025.
    Australlia has joined Norway/Saudi resource based economy with complete dependence on external suppliers.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226346325432
    Budget 2012 $4bn stripped from Defence
    The "cut" is in fact rescheduling those payments in what is known as the "forward estimates". I don't see an alternative given the US DoD program rebaselining. By way of background the Aus DoD regularly underspends its budget due to slower than expected payments for major projects as a result of schedule delays. The political overtone to the issue is that the government here has declared that the federal budget will return to surplus in 2012-13 after running comparatively (by OECD standards) small deficits for a few years following the global financial crisis.

    Yes mining is a large sector of the Aus economy, as it is in countries like Canada and the US. Unlike Saudi Arabia though, Aus does have manufacturing and service sectors - cars, pharmaceuticals, aerospace components and assemblies, military ship building, education of international students. Sure the high value of the AUD is currently hurting those sectors, but once the global economy really begins to recover from the current economic situation that will change.
    Last edited by Tribes; 3rd May 2012 at 21:11.

  29. #1259
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by Tribes View Post
    The "cut" is in fact rescheduling those payments in what is known as the "forward estimates". I don't see an alternative given the US DoD program rebaselining. By way of background the Aus DoD regularly underspends its budget due to slower than expected payments for major projects as a result of schedule delays. The political overtone to the issue is that the government here has declared that the federal budget will return to surplus in 2012-13 after running comparatively (by OECD standards) small deficits for a few years following the global financial crisis.
    . Australlia has only ordered 2 aircraft. Now US orders are already more than 100 untill 2017. Now Australlia is deferring decision on 12 aircraft untill 2015. So there wont be any money for that untill 2015. so ur not likely to see that 12 aircraft untill 2020 in operational service. There is no such thing as ordering 100 aircraft at this point. Australlia may well be the second largest user of JSF on long term considering the trends in other countries.
    Yes mining is a large sector of the Aus economy, as it is in countries like Canada and the US. Unlike Saudi Arabia though, Aus does have manufacturing and service sectors - cars, pharmaceuticals, aerospace components and assemblies, military ship building, education of international students. Sure the high value of the AUD is currently hurting those sectors, but once the global economy really begins to recover from the current economic situation that will change.
    Mining is pretty much the only sector in Australlia. as the rest of sector merely servicing the mining sector. Every thing else is just assembling foreign brand. RSAF size is now almost 3 times of RAAF and still maintianing world 2nd largest trade surplus.
    Australlia has very minor contracts in JSF supply chain. There is claim of $300m worth of contracts. and but we dont how long that $300m will last as most of JSF production is now delayed. and the same will happen to submarine. Most of Aust. weopons programes have delays and overpriced as Australlia lacks the skills to properly estimate the cost and complexity of customized things it is purchasing. It is complete dependency. Only standardized things with active assembly line like F-18E can come within reasonable cost.

  30. #1260
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    . Australlia has only ordered 2 aircraft. Now US orders are already more than 100 untill 2017. Now Australlia is deferring decision on 12 aircraft untill 2015. So there wont be any money for that untill 2015. so ur not likely to see that 12 aircraft untill 2020 in operational service. There is no such thing as ordering 100 aircraft at this point. Australlia may well be the second largest user of JSF on long term considering the trends in other countries.
    The Aus DoD won't confirm its F-35 orders until the US DoD is happy with the performance and supportability of the aircraft, i.e. that all identified issues have been resolved. To do otherwise is really just walking into a potential world of (extreme) pain for no purpose.


    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    .

    Mining is pretty much the only sector in Australlia. as the rest of sector merely servicing the mining sector. Every thing else is just assembling foreign brand. RSAF size is now almost 3 times of RAAF and still maintianing world 2nd largest trade surplus.
    Australlia has very minor contracts in JSF supply chain.
    So, for example, selling motor vehicles to the middle east and the US is only done to support the mining industry? Selling high speed catamarans to operators around the globe (Austal and Incat) is done for the same reason? And providing financial services across the south Pacific also?

    Yes the Aus share of F-35 is small, but that's not the only program local suppliers are involved in. Most are civil.

    Is this an economics or geography forum?

    The RSAF and the RAAF are structured in very different ways due to the very strategic circumstances of each nation. Aircraft such as the F-5 and E-2 don't fit the RAAF's agenda, but the more costly to buy and operate P-3, C-17 and 737AEW do. Also, the RAAF is happy to leave rotary wing aviation to the army (and navy). The Aus and Singapore navies are also structured very differently for the same reason.

    Given the ongoing cooperation between the RAAF and RSAF I suspect each has a high degree of respect for the other.
    Last edited by Tribes; 5th May 2012 at 06:19.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES