Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2017 F-35 news and discussion thread

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    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

    Comment


      #22
      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?

      Comment


        #23
        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

        Comment


          #24
          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.

          Comment


            #25
            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.

            Comment


              #26
              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...

              Comment


                #27
                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

                Comment


                  #28
                  How heavy does the F-35C have to be in order for the catapult shakes problem to disappear - 50% fuel load perhaps?

                  Comment


                    #29
                    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?

                    Comment


                      #30
                      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?

                      Comment


                        #31
                        Originally posted by FBW View Post
                        EMAILS will have..... not getting EMAILS
                        Isn't auto-correct a bitch
                        "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                        Comment


                          #32
                          Originally posted by FBW View Post
                          EMAILS will have a smoother acceleration profile... as they are not getting EMAILS
                          Yeah, but if the primary DNS server is having a bad day the dam things wont even get off the Carrier, if they actually get airborne they might very well sink the B***y Outlook...

                          Ill get me coat...

                          (Hats off to Spud for noticing it)
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                            #33
                            Every time I respond using my phone, I have to go back and shake my head at the grammar and autocorrect errors. yes, EMALS, though with that shake on launch their not reading emails either.

                            Comment


                              #34
                              Aviation Week is reporting that the USAF submitted its supplemental spending bill 'wish list' that included 10 Additional F-35A's for the FY17 budget. The original submitted along with the PB17 was for 5, that restored the aircraft that were shaved from the submitted budget request. They've now revised it up to 10.

                              http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/...usaf-wish-list
                              Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                              Comment


                                #35
                                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?
                                Simply not a high priority. It's only an issue when the F-35C is lightly loaded, and that pretty much only happens during carrier quals and maybe some short-range hops. Once you put enough fuel and weapons in it to carry out an operational mission the problem disappears.

                                It does demonstrate the hyperbole in media reporting about the F-35 though -- the plane being too bouncy on take-off when lightly loaded (i.e. not a problem in most missions) is reported as "debilitating" and yet Russian planes are crashing every several weeks in the Mediterranean and apparently that's fine.

                                Comment


                                  #36
                                  Originally posted by Vanshilar View Post
                                  Simply not a high priority. It's only an issue when the F-35C is lightly loaded, and that pretty much only happens during carrier quals and maybe some short-range hops. Once you put enough fuel and weapons in it to carry out an operational mission the problem disappears.

                                  It does demonstrate the hyperbole in media reporting about the F-35 though -- the plane being too bouncy on take-off when lightly loaded (i.e. not a problem in most missions) is reported as "debilitating" and yet Russian planes are crashing every several weeks in the Mediterranean and apparently that's fine.
                                  Not a high priority but quoted as "to fix" by navy. Saying it's unimportant just show... Well nvm. The day you are a pilot and have to take off lightly loaded (eg QRA), will you sit in ?

                                  Comment


                                    #37
                                    I was not a "high priority" within the context of the entire JSF program mainly due to the F-35C not declaring IOC till Block 3F while the F-35B & F-35A declared IOC at 2B/3i.

                                    It's a "to fix" item in context of Block 3F, ie the completion of the SDD program (Spring/Summer of 2018).
                                    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                                    Comment


                                      #38
                                      Originally posted by halloweene View Post
                                      Not a high priority but quoted as "to fix" by navy. Saying it's unimportant just show... Well nvm. The day you are a pilot and have to take off lightly loaded (eg QRA), will you sit in ?
                                      QRA are lightly loaded? I was in the impression that they are fully fueled and armed to the teeth for A2A with now networked resources adding missiles such the full load of anti-aircraft missile any ship can carry .
                                      Last edited by TomcatViP; 1st February 2017, 01:35.

                                      Comment


                                        #39
                                        Originally posted by halloweene View Post
                                        Not a high priority but quoted as "to fix" by navy. Saying it's unimportant just show... Well nvm. The day you are a pilot and have to take off lightly loaded (eg QRA), will you sit in ?
                                        The question was why was it not put in for a fix in 2014 when it was discovered. It's not that it doesn't need to be fixed, it's that they had much bigger issues on their plate at the time. If you recall, that's when they were testing the new version of the arresting hook, for example. It's not as if they've been working day and night to fix the vertical oscillation problem since 2014 -- just that it's only recently that the issue is coming to the forefront because other bigger issues have already been resolved.

                                        The Navy, doing a QRA? Don't they have CAP?

                                        Comment


                                          #40
                                          i dont buy that the issue only occur when taking off on fuel fumes, no one ever does it,
                                          and they arent doing it on the video either.
                                          and all go to great length to have more than fumes when landing even, and navy doubly so.

                                          keeping CAP at all time coulda explain why navy didnt have cash to buy next generation destroyers

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X