via Breaking Defense.
After several months of uncertainty whether CF-3 and CF-5 would both be ready to fly — complete with new tail hook assemblies and huge amounts of test instrumentation — Bogdan told us yesterday they would both fly to the ship. As Breaking D readers know, thetail hook on the F-35Cs had to be redesigned. The initial design did not reliably engage the cable and wasn’t strong enough. The Arresting Hook System got better damping, changed the shape of the hook and made it and where it connects with the airframe, much stronger. During tests over the last five months, F-35C test pilots had to deliberately land their aircraft on the nose gear to mimic what can happen when pitching seas may drive a carrier deck right up into a plane as it lands. A Navy pilot I spoke with said the physical punishment of such a landing is “pretty impressive” — not to mention the stresses it can place on the plane. I’ll be in San Diego and on the Nimitz all next week covering the tests for you.If we weren't talking about the future defense of the fleet---and a crazy amount of money....This would be funny.
Do you notice it? Can you sense the same attempt to generate headlines like they did when the push was on to fly the F-35 to Europe? But what really has me curious and I have yet to hear anyone talk about is the lead that Breaking Defense buried...
A Navy pilot I spoke with said the physical punishment of such a landing is “pretty impressive” — not to mention the stresses it can place on the plane.Can a stealth airplane take the punishment of carrier landings?
Can the F-35 handle the stress after its been subjected to weight reduction and had so much of it structure "shaved" down?
I just don't know.
What I do know is that this program is setting up an artificial make-or break moment and I don't know why.
Something is going on with this program. I just can't piece it together.
The US Navy is about to pull an F-111 on the F-35.
ReplyDeleteThe F-111 was just too fat for carrier use, and eventually it was dropped after two prototypes were developed that showed how difficult it was to modify a ground based fighter for use on an aircraft carrier.
It is much easier to design an aircraft for the Navy, the pull off all the arresting gear and beefed up parts and sell it to the USAF (think F4) than it is to design an aircraft for the USAF and try to sell it to the Navy (such as the F-111).
Interesting results are coming.
The F-35 program was originally designed as an AV-8 replacement. So lumping it in with the F-111 as a "land-based" fighter being modified for carrier work is not 100% accurate. Still, designing a plane to meet both the Air Force and Navy's needs inevitably resulyed in a plane that has serious compromises in both shipborne and land-based roles.
DeleteDo you have a link stating the F-35 was originally designed as an AV-8 replacement?
DeleteCheck out the DoD's new "Third Offset" strategy, which (for the first time AFAIK - officially, that is) suggests that the Navy version of the F-35 might be redundant. I'll be blogging about it myself over the next few days. See this article for an introduction and analysis:
ReplyDeletehttp://aviationweek.com/blog/you-say-you-want-revolution
I think the physical punishment applied to the pilot, he then goes on to say that the plane suffers stress.
ReplyDeleteIf a hard landing sprains wrists, breaks fingers, well, that's a problem.
I don't think the structural integrity is a problem; the tail hook design is.
ReplyDeleteMalfunctios, mistakes and accidents happens all the time, specially at night landing on a carrier deck. They also need to bring back bombs.
ReplyDeleteI hope they really know what they are doing with the F-35C
http://youtu.be/H-cvv8SVhHA
While Bogdan has been extremely verbose about the F-35 engine failure and its fixes, he has said nothing about the Charlie's trap failure first identified over three years ago in August 2011. All we know is that, from a test report: "The program added 139 pounds to the F-35C weight status in May 2013 to account for the redesigned arresting hook system." NAVAIR never mentions the F-35C, like it doesn't exist.
ReplyDeleteIn January 2012 the F-35 prime contractor Lockheed said: "The good news is that it's fairly straight forward and isolated to the hook itself," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed program manager for the F-35 program. "It doesn't have secondary effects going into the rest of the airplane." The jury is still out on secondary effects.
Part of me wants these trials to fail spectacularly enough for there to be a public outcry. Another class-A mishap perhaps? No loss of life, of course, but enough to get the mainstream media's attention.
ReplyDeleteUnrelated, but have you seen this Sol? As a Canadian this Marine has my undying respect.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1648278/take-your-best-shot-says-former-marine-in-front-of-national-war-memorial/
funny thing about this (or not), is the Navy had a carrier based platform which:
ReplyDelete- Trapped on a carrier
- Took off from a carrier
- Had a range that exceeded the SH and now the F-35
- Extremely capable of dropping bombs (al la what the F-35 is not proposed to be come - (a bomb truck) - despite it limited up grade of avionics and weapons systems
- ow and carried more weapons and range of
- turned,
- could take on air threats
- went faster
- could do it all in any weather conditions
- had an upgrade path that although expansive, would look like pocket change to the current F-35 program
I wonder if someone should have shot the dog...not the cat
Except fot the top speed and range, with the Super Hornet the Navy still have an airplane that can do all what you describe but stealthier and easier to mantain and with better sensors and radar. To increase the range and top speed they just need to use EPE engines and CFT. An F-14 is pretty much a Super Hornet, with the same thrust to weight and climb rate for dogfight or attack. Just in delta configuration for interception is a faster airplane. As I sais, with EPE engines that difference will almost disappear.
ReplyDeletesame for the 14 (or Tomcat 21 that never got made). New engines etc would have made this platform superior in certain/most roles? (its all speculation now) I think/though the F-14 had a better radar and sensors - particularly now if it was allowed to up grade at the SH rate of development, I was under the impression it was better potential platform for the USN. but dropped fir the magic F-35. (among other reasons).
ReplyDeleteI think it was dropped for the maintenance cost. In that sence the Super Hornet is a better option for the same or better capabilities except the top speed, but that could be improved if they decide not to waist more time and money in the F-35C
ReplyDelete