Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Angel Eyes on March 11, 2012, 01:33:38 PM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Ki86x1WKPmE
F-35B undergoing tests on the USS Wasp. No particular reason for posting; I just think this is really cool to watch.
-
Cool video, thanks for posting. How much money is saved in the future without needed cat assisted take offs or cable arrested landings. Less equipment for to wear out, fewer people needed to operate and repair.
-
I was surprised by what I thought was a high sink rate on final descent on the vertical landings. I wonder if it is capable of a vertical landing with a full fuel and ordinance load, in case of a mission abort, or would they have to jettison everything.
PS: Or can the F-35 do a rolling landing on an amphib ship, like it can do a rolling takeoff?
-
Cool video, thanks for posting. How much money is saved in the future without needed cat assisted take offs or cable arrested landings. Less equipment for to wear out, fewer people needed to operate and repair.
Probably not a cent saved, given the greater build complexity on each F35. Probably much easier to service the parts of a catapult that need it than the VTOL bits of every F35 on board.
-
I was thinking long term as the need for new ships arise they could be built cheaper because all the equipment isn't needed and as more of our aircraft become V/STOL capable.
-
The F-35 may look cool, but because of all the STOVL baggage it will fall short in air to air combat. It doesn't have the turn rate, climb rate, or speed compared to any of the modern Sukhoi fighters, and it carries about half the armament of the F-22. I expect the cost per unit to rise when the other countries involved drop the JSF.
-
There is a reason the navy variant isn't V/STOL. That hardware dramatically reduces internal fuel load, takeoff and return ordnance loads, and thus combat effectiveness. As the marines are concerned (at least for this aircraft) close support and strike, rather than long range interdiction and strike, it is an acceptable trade. For the navy, not so much.
-
Wish Leatherneck was here to comment. No money saved, but gives you that many more flat decks to launch a strike fighter from. As already said, it's a compromise. They deck run launch and land vertically. No, they're not going to vertically land with a full load. I'm sure there is a 3,000 page volume of tests to show exactly what ordnance combinations on what stations they can land with. for vertical take-off, not sure when that would get used, maybe take off with internal fuel and a cannon loadout, not something that would normally be done. Taking a carrier trap with a full load doesn't exactly commonly get done either.
As for the descent rate, I've only been around Harriers but the SOP there is to get the stable hover about 10ft off and chop the throttles. Never has my inspector certification been more nervous than when re-building Harrier main landing gear struts. :mad:
It is cool to watch, I like the fact that we end up with more than 11 decks that can cause someone trouble. The Navy's big deck amphib replacement debacle, another story. Amphibs have never been cool, belong to NAVSEA instead of NAVAIR and just don't have the dollar inertia of the carriers and the fighter mafia at the top of the Pentagon. The NAVSEA heavy hitters want their surface combatants first.
-
maybe take off with internal fuel and a cannon loadout
The V/STOL version will carry it's gun in an external pod, too.
I don't have good feelings about the whole JSF program. I think it's a major boondoggle. It should NOT take 20 years to get an aircraft from the drawing board into service. Hell, by the time they finish designing it, it's going to be out of date.
We are going to really regret what we end up with as far as our overall military size and makeup goes. We are rapidly moving to a situation similar to how our military was in the 1970s.
-
My understanding is that the VTOL craft can lift vertically with a weapons load, but they can lift with a heavier load if they do the horizontal short take off.
I agree with you in part at least. It shouldn't take this long to get those planes from the drawing board to the decks. I also worry about the size of the R&D budgets to develop them.
I really hope testing like this means the Marines will get their new VTOL aircraft sooner rather than later.
-
Good luck landing one of those that has any battle damage.
-
Probably won't happen, lots of ducted bleed air to control attitude. Just be glad to see the Harriers go.
-
how hots the down blast? whats it do to the deck
-
how hots the down blast? whats it do to the deck
Cold on the front, hot in the back, but not as hot as the harrier (higher bypass on the core flow to the rear nozzle
-
Just be glad to see the Harriers go.
Can you elaborate? What's wrong with the Harriers, other than dated tech?
-
Can you elaborate? What's wrong with the Harriers, other than dated tech?
I'll bet maintence is a total bitch (as in much worse than normal military aircraft). Not suprising since it's a British design...
-
I'll bet maintence is a total bitch (as in much worse than normal military aircraft). Not suprising since it's a British design...
Winner. I only did a little I-level shop work and it was bad enough. For awhile all the tech document changes passed through my hands for review, constantly fixing something on an aircraft in service 25 years. Single engine, single seat not really fit for blue water ops, so the F-35 doesn't solve everything. The undercarriage and landing look so much better than the Harrier though.
-
So the major difference between this and the Harrier is some kind of turbine or rotor in the middle of the thing?
-
So the major difference between this and the Harrier is some kind of turbine or rotor in the middle of the thing?
Well, there's more to it than that.
Thrust configuration is different across the board - instead of 4 rotating nozzles, 2/side, feeding from a single engine like on the Harrier, the F-35 has a vectoring nozzle at the rear which can deflect all the way down plus a shaft-driven lift fan.
F-35 is stealthy, and can hit supersonic speeds. Harrier is not and cannot (well, Harriers can, I believe, break the sound barrier in a dive, but it cannot hit and hold supersonic speed in level flight).
Maintenance, a notorious issue with Harriers, is (I believe) supposed to be easier with the F-35.
There's no conventional-takeoff-and-landing version of the Harrier; there is for the Navy's version of the F-35.
The F-35 is much more gawdawful-expensive than the Harrier.
-
Can you elaborate? What's wrong with the Harriers, other than dated tech?
Much higher accident rate than other fixed wing aircraft in the military. I was at NAS Jacksonville pre-flighting our plane to back to NAS Moffett Field when a Harrier came in to the field and was hovering over the grass. I don't know what happened, but one second he was hovering and the next second he was a ball of fire next to the taxiway. Those things were notoriously hard to control in vertical mode. Until the USMC figured that out they lost quite a few of them with fairly new pilots at the controls. It got better when they started using more experienced pilots.
As far as maintenance, the Marines were in the hanger next to ours at Kadena AFB so we went to lunch at the same flight line geedunk. They were always complaining of how difficult they were to work on. To get the engine out of the airframe the wing had to come off. Not something I would like to do routinely.
bob
-
Expanding on the subject of the JSF and our military air fleet in general...I don't see good times ahead. Will the JSF actuallly enter service in 2016? Will it actually be produced in the numbers it's supposed to be? Will it actually WORK decently enough? I fear the answer to all of the above questions is "no". We used to buy fighters in the thousands. We used to go from drawing board to ramp in merely a few years...and that was back when we used fricken' slide rules to design aircraft. Now? It takes 20 years to get airplanes on the ramp (if you are lucky...more often than not they are canceled, ala the RAH-66 Comanche).
We are stretching our military dangerously thin. We are planning to keep current airframes in service- that have already been in service for extraordinary lengths of time- for unprecedented lengths of time. KC-135 and B-52, anyone? They are talking about keeping the B-52 in service for 85 years or more. To me, that's crazy talk. Even with upgrades and rebuilds, them hosses are going to be TIRED. What's in the cards for a future bomber? Nothing. The B-1B was built in only a small number and the B-2 even smaller (despite it being a stealthy aircraft).
Tankers- when are we actually going to see the KC-767 tanker? And apparently it's going to be only in few numbers. The KC-135 is going to soldier on much like the B-52.
Transports- we've got C-17s and C-5s for now. What about the future? These aren't aircraft you can adapt from a passenger widebody like the tankers. Like bombers, cargo aircraft are specialized.
-
Neat link, I'll have to send it on to my little brother. He spent a few years on the Wasp.
As far as the JSF and other .mil stuff look up the movie "Pentagon Wars".
-
...coming to you soon, Fall
2025 2027.
-
Neat link, I'll have to send it on to my little brother. He spent a few years on the Wasp.
As far as the JSF and other .mil stuff look up the movie "Pentagon Wars".
Better yet, read norm Augustine's book.
-
Intersting JSF fun fact.
The clutch for the lift fan is the same technology used in F1 cars, a multiplate carbon-carbon clutch. It has to hold something like 15-20,000hp without slipping...and is really small. :)
-
Back in the day, the Marines thought that top student pilots deserved airframes like the F18. And then some more rational thinking prevailed and they started sticking the better pilots into the harrier and the accident rate went down.
When I was ATC in the Marines I spent 5 years in Yuma. 4 Harrier squadrons. I've seen my fair share of Harrier accidents, incidents, and issues.... :O
The most entertaining was when the Mars squadron would come from Cherry Point. Those are the student harrier pilots.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that the Harrier needs a short roll under full combat load. Lighter loaded it can take off vertically. Doesn't land well under full load either, they would normally "roll on" with a full load if they returned under emergency circumstances.
-
Accident rate was always the highest for any fixed wing, by far. They dealt with a fun issue for a while a few years back, uncommanded throttle rollback. Basically a sensor feedback loop deal and an air sensor would get a retarded input and chop the throttle while vertical.
I've never seen a vertical take-off, on ship they deck run with nozzles in forward flight mode and at the end there is a nozzle rotate line where the pilot kicks them to an intermediate position.
Hot deck problems usually not an issue since they don't idle with nozzles down, just in landing. Hot deck for Ospreys? Yep, fun times.
The only positive I see is the Harrier's over-taxed landing gear was on centerline. With the F-35 if you land on a mobile ship with a weird attitude you are going to stress the hell out of one strut and its mountings until the other one contacts and/or slams down too hard.
-
Hot deck problems usually not an issue since they don't idle with nozzles down, just in landing. Hot deck for Ospreys? Yep, fun times.
Ayep. VSTOLs generally don't fry the deck too horribly. Ospreys can be problematic of (on ships) cooking the deck or (on land) starting fires.
-
Will the F35 USMC variant result in any loss of capability? It is supposed to replace not just the USMC Harriers,
but also the USMC F-18ABCD, too, IIRC. USMC will purchase a buncha Navy-variant F35s to fly off the big flat tops, too.
It will be nice to have fully-capable multi-role fighters on the amphibs, though.
I will laugh my tuckus off if the final cost on the f35s ends up being within spitting distance of the F22, which was cancelled for costs, but looks to be superior in most every way to teh f35.
-
We used to buy fighters in the thousands. We used to go from drawing board to ramp in merely a few years...and that was back when we used fricken' slide rules to design aircraft. Now? It takes 20 years to get airplanes on the ramp (if you are lucky...more often than not they are canceled, ala the RAH-66 Comanche).
Between:
- federal acquisition regulation, prohibiting anyone but massive megacorps from bidding for the big fish)
- government accounting, think Cthulhu insanity
- politics, sourcing based on pork, not best fit
- incompetence within military-industrial complex companies. I worked for 'em... Trust me, you'd weep at the stupidity,
- the military "designing" the aircraft instead of aerospace engineers (the specs, which bloody well decide the rest of the aircraft),
etc etc.
20 years is pretty good.
-
Back in the day, the Marines thought that top student pilots deserved airframes like the F18. And then some more rational thinking prevailed and they started sticking the better pilots into the harrier and the accident rate went down.
When I was ATC in the Marines I spent 5 years in Yuma. 4 Harrier squadrons. I've seen my fair share of Harrier accidents, incidents, and issues.... :O
The most entertaining was when the Mars squadron would come from Cherry Point. Those are the student harrier pilots.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that the Harrier needs a short roll under full combat load. Lighter loaded it can take off vertically. Doesn't land well under full load either, they would normally "roll on" with a full load if they returned under emergency circumstances.
Not a pilot (gorramit!), but the specs for the Harrier always showed a LARGE delta between max VTO load and max STO load - like, 6,000lbs+, IIRC. 3 tons is a LOT of missiles. Federation of American Scientists shows AV-8B max VTO weight at 9342kg, max STO weight (435meter run) 14,061kg, about TEN thousand pounds heavier. Some of that will be in fuel, too, of course, but :O. If you want to carry much in the Harrier, you'd better have a short-takeoff run or a full-on runway. Vertical landing weight is actually a little less than VTO loading - 9,043kg, max spec (design limit is about 2,000kg more).
Still, I see them at the airshow and think, "Man, wouldn't THAT be an awesome daily-driver!" If I didn't have to pay for the fuel or maintenance, of course... :lol:
-
Still, I see them at the airshow and think, "Man, wouldn't THAT be an awesome daily-driver!" If I didn't have to pay for the fuel or maintenance, of course.
There is one Harrier in civilian hands. http://nallsaviation.com/
(World's coolest money pit, hands down. Personally, I just want an L-39)
-
I want a Skyraider with intact guns. Failing that I'll take a SU-25
-
As long as we're choosing, I want an A-10.
-
As long as we're choosing, I want an A-10.
I'd take a B-52. With red pills on the exterior pylons.