Forum: F-35 Design & Construction

On second thought, the usual suspects would probably find cause to blame it for the melting icepack.. Very Happy

F-16.net Sponsor

Did not the requirement of the drag chute on the Viper have something with the short (800 meter's) airfields around Norway?
Is that requirement no longer there on the F-35?

But wouldn't the global warming caused by the -B actually remove the need for ice control measures in the first place?
Perhaps it would need floats instead of wheels by that time then, I guess there's no easy answer here while the love affair with tiny runways prevails.

They could use the B in hover mode to melt the ice on the runway and taxiways

popcorn wrote:

On second thought, the usual suspects would probably find cause to blame it for the melting icepack.. Very Happy

Norway is the second largest gas exporter and sixth largest oil exporter in the world so these issues are very much in the news, but I have not seen anything about the F-35 in this context.

What is in the news is the location of the base since the current location of two of our F-16 squadrons, Bodø, is so close to a lot of population forcing the Air Force to include the cost of a new runway due to the increased noise level of the F-35. So noise pollution is the key.

The "Bee" as a giant snow blower/ handwarmer, I never linked those together! Very Happy

These may get more cold climate invites out to our Corp buddies. Doh

The 338 squadron at Ørlandet air station uses brake chutes during winter ops just as the squadrons in Bodø. The climatic differences isn't much different. Also keep in mind that F-16 operations today also include other airfields i Northern Norway. So the question of braking chutes on the F-35 hasn't much to do with the choise of basing for the future F-35's in Norway.

There is a big debate about basing options here in Norway. To save money, and have a sustainable budget to work with, the defense chief has proposed to the Norwegian government that Ørlandet to be chosen as the primary air base for the F-35. The critics point to several disadvantages with this:

1. In a time of conflict our air force may be wiped out in a singe blow. The defense leadership counters by saying they would disperse it's aircraft in advance. Critics of this "doctrine"say such a step could be seen as an offensive move and thereby escalating the situation that wouldn't occur if the aircraft was in the area (Northern Norway) in the first place.
2. The aircraft is moved away from their primary operations area, and the F-35's combat radius from Ørland would no longer cover the main operations area up north. The Norwegian government has long held the view that the ever more contested Barents region, with its rich natural resources, are our of vital interest to our nation.

Personaly I would agree that Norway's national interest are not served by moving all our future fighter assets south to a singe base. My guess that the politicians will not like his proposal either, and will choose to stay with today's solution with fighter sqd in Bodø and Ørlandet both. Time will tell.

Perhaps this a good thread to continue discussions about the 'the incredible specialness of Norway in regard to icy runways and the F-35A?' Whatever. I found this question at the end of the thread about TURKEY buying 2 F-35As puzzling. Please explain. Thanks.

'neurotech' asked: "Humor me, but what would make Norway "Special"? I understand they have weapons they want integrated, and prefer drag chutes on their jets. Am I missing something? Is it shorter runways than other operators?

There's something embarrassing about crashing a carrier aircraft like the F/A-18 on a conventional runway landing, when field arresting gear is available and should be used and is not. A F-35 is a more expensive aircraft to wreck.

As above, I don't know how good the F-35A for repeated arrested landings, but hopefully it wont require special inspection after a routine arrested landing."

I made an assumption about icy runways being the reason for the specialness. I hadn't followed the Norwegian F-35 buy closely.
So the question remains, are field arrested landings a safer option in a F-35 than having problems with slick/icy runways and crosswinds? The Finnish sometimes trap their F-18s.

OK. Thanks for starting again here. 'archeman' I believe started the 'specialness' aspect. So I cannot speak to that. Canada also has questions for their fitout for their 'iced runways' so that 'specialness' starts to break down.

Field arrested landings in an F-35C would be a safe option for iced runway use but not a good option for many aircraft to recover on that same runway quickly. There is a finite time for each aircraft to be released from that gear - clear the runway and for the gear to be reconstituted for another recovery. Perhaps that is a simple practical matter easily solved with operational procedures.

As to the question of successive 'emergency' use of the F-35A 'emergency hook' I think there was discussion about that in the thread about 'testing the F-35C' hook/arrestor gear. I'll go check on that.

However it seems to me that with a parachute on an F-35A and with suitable tested procedures for use on an icy runway that things will be fine. I myself cannot see why there is any hoo-haa about this aspect but whatever.
_________________________

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-120.html

When I first saw this photo I had no idea that the 'emergency hook' on the F-35A was so 'flimsy' (so to speak) compared to an F-35C hook. Which of course is meant for constant use rather than F-35A occasional - if ever - emergency use:

http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/f_ ... um_289.jpg
&
http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f_35var ... ed_177.gif

______________________

And to top it off an 'iced VoVo' landing (probably only older Ozzers would get that joke) Very Happy

From this page of same thread: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-150.html

http://www.f-16.net/attachments/495314913_590.jpg

___________________

And how the F-35A emergency hook may look in comparison to this F-16 same same hook use:

http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f16_tailhook_1_139.jpg
&
http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f_35aho ... ed_141.gif

and here is what 'johnwill' said at above thread page (repeated here):

"Some speculation here, but initially the F-16 strap was not replaced after every use. In fact we did 94 arrestments in 1979 on FSD No. 2 at Edwards to develop the arrestment limits (weight, speed, offset) for the A and B models, all with the same hook. The hook point was replaced several times due to wear from runway abrasion. The point got so sharp it once sliced completely through the cable, so the top half was totally shredded. The speculation is that weight growth over the last 33 years has made it wise to replace the hook after every use. I was not aware they did that. I'm wondering if only the hook point is replaced.

The strap, although curved with no load, assumes a perfectly straight shape when loaded to 65,000 lb."

So I gather - perhaps - that the F-35A 'emergency hook' can be re-used but I don't know that myself. I'll imagine that at the very least an inspection of the entire hook mechanism would be required?

spazsinbad said :

When I first saw this photo I had no idea that the 'emergency hook' on the F-35A was so 'flimsy' (so to speak) compared to an F-35C hook. Which of course is meant for constant use rather than F-35A occasional - if ever - emergency use:

The reason the "A" hook is so flimsy compared to the "C" hook is primarily due to the runout distance for the field emergency arrestment system being about 1000 feet compared to about 200 feet for the CV arrestment system. Hook loads are of course much higher for the shorter runout. Plus the "C" usage has many more events, and the airplane is somewhat heavier.

You make a good point about turn around time for the field system being excessive. It takes much longer to rewind that 1000 foot runout.

If the "A" hook is anything like the F-16, it is designed for a few hundred field arrestments plus use as a tiedown for engine runs. If the actual usage is more severe than that, simply replacing the hook won't be enough, as the fuselage attachment structure is designed to the same load spectrum. The best thing there would be to redesign for higher usage, since replacing it would be very difficult.

As far as inspection after use, that would not normally be required unless the arrestment conditions were outside the -1 limits for engagement speed. Things may have changed over the years, but the old rule of thumb was to do a structural inspection if limits were exceeded by more than 5%.

Thanks 'johnwill'.

Norway has about a dozen "long" runways, and all being shared with civilian traffic (perhaps Ørland is different) the there are possibly a couple dozen shorter runways of less than 1km (<3000ft). These shorter runways are so-called disbursement fields for the current Vipers. If this is to continue extra stopping power will be needed. If any of have been in Norway you will know that the landscape is mostly vertical, so not so good for long runways, hence Canada with their vast amount of land don't have this problem.

Another issue is the advantage the droug chute has over a wire is that several fighters may land before anyone need to attend to the runway, as the pilots train on dumping the chute outside the runway, hence less people are needed, which also is a feature of Norway's small air force

Good illustration of the work required to bring the BAK-12 back into service after a practice arrest (VIDEO):

Misawa AB - F-16 Barrier Engagement ESCO's BAK-12 Stops another F-16

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEE7eOtGc-E

"Uploaded by JimmyMisawa on Dec 13, 2010
A Misawa F-16 and her crew conduct a barrier engagement exercise."

Forum: F-35 Design & Construction

Norway may no longer require drag chute