Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 51 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 1510

Thread: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,303

    2017 F-35 news and discussion thread

    Cant seem to find the 2016 thread, and seeing how it's a new year....


    Couldn't help to but to open with this article, a fantastic example of journalistic failure.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...ad0-1485781886

    As readers will know, I am not an expert on aircraft and I obtain much of my information from Air Power Australia who has been helping Mattis and his people. Air Power has been proved right and the Australian swamp proved wrong on so many occasions over the decade that it must be embarrassing for Canberra.
    This poor columnist is claiming APA is working with the U.S. SecDef. Makes you wonder what B.S. Airpower Australia is telling this journalist to get him to believe that.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,413
    I red about Mattis initiative about a comparison betweenF-35 (what model?) and an "updated" F/A-18 but seeems me just a way to justify themselves with the voters and put pressure to LoMart than a serious thing.

    Certainly, seeing the mess they have made with the Muslim ban i wonder if they are instead going for a second round there.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Leicestershire, England
    Posts
    1,486
    Oh good, another couple of hundred pages of petty, childish, schoolyard point scoring and bickering by the usual suspects, to look forward to, interspersed with the (extremely) occasional piece of genuinely useful information...

    -Dazza

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,029

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    I red about Mattis initiative about a comparison betweenF-35 (what model?) and an "updated" F/A-18 but seeems me just a way to justify themselves with the voters and put pressure to LoMart than a serious thing.
    The "C". Mattis launched a review comparing the "C" with an updated SH.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,413
    So, just what I have imagined as the other two are too advanced to be taken into consideration.
    Or in case of B, having literally not any alternative.
    Having the F/A-18 in service they could almost call on the advantage of having just one logistical line instead of two.
    This + the political advantage for the amateur in chief to leave its own mark anyway, regardless of the matter in question...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,183
    It is difficult to understate how much NAVAIR loathes F-35C.

    They view it as an Air Force airplane shoved down their throats. Built in an Air Force factory and procured by an Air Force led Government Program Office with little input from NAVAIR.

    NAVAIR will harp about every little issue F-35C has while ignoring failures of NAVAIR-led programs like Super Hornet wing drop and drag or baby Hornet aileron reversal and drag or Osprey vortex ring state and nacelle leaks/fires.

    NAVAIR is extremely political because NAVAIR is a government jobs program and they are fighting to keep their jobs - all 30,000 of them. Success of a non-NAVAIR program spells disaster for continued need for NAVAIR ans its 30,000 bureaucrats.

    The bottom line is to beware negative sniping coming from undisclosed "official" sources because their view is likely shaped by politics.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,029
    Quote Originally Posted by djcross View Post
    It is difficult to understate how much NAVAIR loathes F-35C.

    They view it as an Air Force airplane shoved down their throats. Built in an Air Force factory and procured by an Air Force led Government Program Office with little input from NAVAIR.

    NAVAIR will harp about every little issue F-35C has while ignoring failures of NAVAIR-led programs like Super Hornet wing drop and drag or baby Hornet aileron reversal and drag or Osprey vortex ring state and nacelle leaks/fires.

    NAVAIR is extremely political because NAVAIR is a government jobs program and they are fighting to keep their jobs - all 30,000 of them. Success of a non-NAVAIR program spells disaster for continued need for NAVAIR ans its 30,000 bureaucrats.

    The bottom line is to beware negative sniping coming from undisclosed "official" sources because their view is likely shaped by politics.
    Or because their views are different from Air Force ones? But i guess that if they do not want C, of course it is because they are part of the swamp........

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,029


    AOUCH!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Cant seem to find the 2016 thread, and seeing how it's a new year....


    Couldn't help to but to open with this article, a fantastic example of journalistic failure.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...ad0-1485781886



    This poor columnist is claiming APA is working with the U.S. SecDef. Makes you wonder what B.S. Airpower Australia is telling this journalist to get him to believe that.

    APA hasn't posted any new articles on their site since 2013. Carlo's university profile says that his areas of study have changed from electronic warfare to automated human behaviour analysis or something similar. They left the game after their public humiliation during the parliamentary defence review.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    Or because their views are different from Air Force ones? But i guess that if they do not want C, of course it is because they are part of the swamp........
    Here it begin, let me the time to grab popcorn.

    Joking...
    I though that Mattis were a Marine, and that the starting point ofthe whole F-35 thing was the STOVL version for them, so I think the NAVAIR eventual loathing for the F-35C also if existing is not the decisive point there.
    Is just the one version that is lagging behind and have a realistic alternative .

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    2,597
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post


    AOUCH!
    USN make carrier aviation look so easy...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,531
    Its all good folks, its all good. TRUMP HAS FIXED IT! Smooth sailing from now on.



    Trump says shaves $600 million from cost of 90 Lockheed F-35 aircraft
    Negotiations for the 10th batch of F-35 aircraft - about 90 planes - have been under way, with a deal expected by the end of the month. The contract was expected to be around $9 billion, with the price per plane falling below $100 million.

    Trump said he became involved in the discussions over the cost of the aircraft about a month ago when he was still president-elect because the negotiations were not progressing.

    "They were having a lot of difficulty. There was no movement. And I was able to get $600 million approximately off those planes. So I think that was a great achievement," Trump said, suggesting the savings would be even larger as more planes are bought and as the administration looks at other contracts.

    The United States is expected to spend some $391 billion over 15 years to buy about 2,443 F-35 aircraft, which are being built in different versions for the Air Force, Navy and Marines.

    The price of the F-35 has typically been dropping with each new batch as Lockheed and the U.S. government ramp up production of the aircraft, which helps to lower overall costs.

    While Trump and other U.S. officials have criticized the F-35 program for delays, cost overruns and high aircraft costs, the program has been stabilizing in recent years and the costs have been coming down.

    "There were great delays, about seven years of delays, tremendous cost overruns," Trump told reporters. "We've ended all of that and we've got that program really, really now in good shape, so I'm very proud of that."


    Sworn into office on 20th Jan. Fixed the program by 30th Jan.

    Whadda man! Truly a master of the "art of the deal".

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Levsha View Post
    USN make carrier aviation look so easy...
    As opposed to -- what? French carrier aviation?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    Its all good folks, its all good. TRUMP HAS FIXED IT! Smooth sailing from now on.



    Trump says shaves $600 million from cost of 90 Lockheed F-35 aircraft




    Sworn into office on 20th Jan. Fixed the program by 30th Jan.

    Whadda man! Truly a master of the "art of the deal".
    Rather the master of the "art of alternative facts".

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    639
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    Rather the master of the "art of alternative facts".
    I think the correct term is post fact...

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post


    AOUCH!
    This is a really close view of the pilot head. It does look like it hurts. worse than i thought

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    2,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    As opposed to -- what? French carrier aviation?
    Is that your suggestion? It wasn't mine.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    As opposed to -- what? French carrier aviation?

    YES! Everything is in motivation..;
    Name:  iris-mittenaere-miss-france-elue-miss-univers.jpg
Views: 1724
Size:  151.7 KB

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    228

    F35C and Catapults

    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    This is a really close view of the pilot head. It does look like it hurts. worse than i thought
    Can anyone enlighten me as to why it has only now become apparent that there is a problem catapulting a light weight F35C?

    As I understood it catapult tests had been conducted on land at a couple of places at least, as well as on another afloat test period, I would have thought with lightly loaded test planes to being with, there was no reported problem with these launches as far as I am aware? Or where the land trials using the EMALS system, that might have been programmed better to deal with a light weight F35C. Still confused that nothing came up at the first afloat test period..

    Just a little surprised that NAVAIR has only let this cat out of the bag and suggests that it will take a couple of years to fix now...

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,029
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilipG View Post
    Can anyone enlighten me as to why it has only now become apparent that there is a problem catapulting a light weight F35C?

    As I understood it catapult tests had been conducted on land at a couple of places at least, as well as on another afloat test period, I would have thought with lightly loaded test planes to being with, there was no reported problem with these launches as far as I am aware? Or where the land trials using the EMALS system, that might have been programmed better to deal with a light weight F35C. Still confused that nothing came up at the first afloat test period..

    Just a little surprised that NAVAIR has only let this cat out of the bag and suggests that it will take a couple of years to fix now...
    It was known since 2014

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    It was known since 2014
    Thanks for that, it was a little confusing, do you know how the fix, if it has been started, is getting on?

    I do not recall this problem being in the normal rant of why the F35 is a total waste of resources, wonder why?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,275
    Lee Hudson reported this a few weeks ago -

    The short-term actions are slated to begin in early 2017 and will take about two to six months to complete, according to the paper. The actions include implementing improved and standardized restraint procedures for pilots and flight testing later this month on the effects of a reduced RRHB release load. VFA-101 will evaluate both the restraint procedures and a reduced RRHB load during its next carrier qualification period in the spring, the paper reads.

    In late 2017, medium-term actions ranging from six to 12 months to complete will begin. These include HMD symbology, nose landing gear modifications and pilot motion modeling. Regarding symbology, "Options are being considered that would simplify the information displayed to the pilot during and immediately after catapult launch, to make it easier for the pilot to interpret flight-critical data," the paper notes. One of the problems here is the contractor doesn't think there is enough time in the system design and development phase to demonstrate this in simulation, according to the paper.

    Long-term actions would not begin until 2019 and would take 12 to 36 months to complete. These include RRHB geometry that would reduce compression of the nose gear strut before launch. This course of action may require ship modifications, according to the red team.

    Another long-term action is a nose landing gear redesign. A redesign is not being pursued because of highly constrained design space.
    https://insidedefense.com/daily-news...mends-possible
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,029
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    Lee Hudson reported this a few weeks ago -



    https://insidedefense.com/daily-news...mends-possible
    I was not kidding when talking about Rafale front landing gear. It stores energy to release it when catapult acceleration stops.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    Lee Hudson reported this a few weeks ago -



    https://insidedefense.com/daily-news...mends-possible
    Thanks I had seen that the work was to start soon and be a two stage "fix". My point was if this had been known about since 2014 why was the work not put in the schedule then?

    In the meantime it all looked to be going well with the F35C, it could catch a wire on a deck etc, the only specific problem to my knowledge was with folded wing strength, now it transpires test pilots have been having uncomfortable catapult launches ever since.

    I assume that EMALS is not the answer with a specific acceleration profile for different weight F35Cs.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilipG View Post
    Thanks I had seen that the work was to start soon and be a two stage "fix". My point was if this had been known about since 2014 why was the work not put in the schedule then?

    In the meantime it all looked to be going well with the F35C, it could catch a wire on a deck etc, the only specific problem to my knowledge was with folded wing strength, now it transpires test pilots have been having uncomfortable catapult launches ever since.

    I assume that EMALS is not the answer with a specific acceleration profile for different weight F35Cs.
    They didn't think it was that big of an issue until now apparently

    More than a decade after the Lockheed Martin F-35 began flight testing, the Navy’s catapult launch and barrier recovery (CATOBAR) variant, the F-35C, remains mired with teething issues. Now, one problem appears to be more debilitating than previously realized

    The Pentagon established a "red team" last September to investigate issues with the F-35C's nose gear and the team is recommending that if initial steps to fix the problem fail, the nose gear should be redesigned, Inside Defense has learned. Last August, Navy fleet aviators from Strike Squadron-101 (VFA-101) were able to evaluate the F-35C catapult shot for the first time during at-sea testing. "During a catapult launch the nose landing gear strut is compressed as the catapult pulls on...

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,303
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilipG View Post
    I assume that EMALS is not the answer with a specific acceleration profile for different weight F35Cs.
    EMAILS will have a smoother acceleration profile, and they will be able to dial in force applied to aircraft weight more accurately. But, that does not fix the issue on the 10 carriers using steam cats, as they are not getting EMAILS

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    2,597
    How heavy does the F-35C have to be in order for the catapult shakes problem to disappear - 50% fuel load perhaps?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Levsha View Post
    How heavy does the F-35C have to be in order for the catapult shakes problem to disappear - 50% fuel load perhaps?
    Is this in a way a Circular Argument? Or a mountain out of a mole hill?

    How often will in reality the F35C be catapulted off a carrier with a light load?

    I assume that once 3F software is available external stores can be carried so there will be no problems, as if there are is a full internal weapons load?

    So is the only time that the F35 has a problem being catapulted from a steam catapult when the squadron is launching near their home base at the end of a cruise?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    2,597
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilipG View Post
    Is this in a way a Circular Argument? Or a mountain out of a mole hill?

    How often will in reality the F35C be catapulted off a carrier with a light load?

    I assume that once 3F software is available external stores can be carried so there will be no problems, as if there are is a full internal weapons load?

    So is the only time that the F35 has a problem being catapulted from a steam catapult when the squadron is launching near their home base at the end of a cruise?
    That is more or less what I have to say. A mountain out of a molehill.

    But, of course, it still has to be considered unacceptable for the aircraft to shake like that during take off, so a solution will still need to be found - there just isn't a hurry for it perhaps?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 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