Forum: Program and politics

Yep and it is odd that we speak about an F-111 on a thread about Naval Aircraft but it interests me anyway - rather than the bollocks about old USAF aircraft. Very Happy

F-16.net Sponsor

Somehow those "joint" programs that were "adapted" ..such as the F-4(thanks to McNamara), the FJ-2, the F-18(not exactly joint but a nice example for a loser ending up a winner).
The actual "joint" programs when it comes to fixed wing aircraft seem to have flopped mostly.

So what now with the less than well endowed hook for the F-35?

hb_pencil wrote:

maus92 wrote:

hb_pencil wrote:

That's not quite true, and your comments reflect the success the Navy had in demonizing the fighter.

Everything I said was was true. The history of military aviation development programs is littered with underperforming aircraft that were cancelled both for technical reasons and changing requirements. That is the way it works. And it turned out that it was the correct decision.

Okay for the last time, the F-111 was not a seriously underperforming aircraft, at least if you make an honest comparison to other aircraft. It met most of the Navy's specifications as they were laid out. They then changed the specifications. Much of the F-111 history has to be understood from the prism of bureaucratic politics. The Navy did not want the fighter and played political games to get it killed.

Neither was the plane dangerous to fly; the F-14A was significantly more risky. The tomcat's the wide spacing of its engines, which made extremely difficult to gly when one of the TF-30 had a "malfunction." With equivalent bring back (ie same amount of fuel and weapons), the F-111 actually was easier to land.

The F-111 received a lot of bad press at the time, which wasn't really deserved. Noted aviation historian Tommy Thomason made this blog post that details some of the inaccuracies perpetuated about the F-111B. His book goes through it pretty comprehensively.

maus92 wrote:

What exactly is untrue? Just because the program is run through NAVAIR and the current PEO is a naval aviator doesn't mean the F-35 basic design was weighted towards naval specifications.

Okay, you say that but then you say...

maus92 wrote:

Quite the contrary. The basic F-35 design is inadequate for CATOBAR (and incidentally is also at the root of the current tailhook issue.) Major structural modifications had to be incorporated to make it work: larger wings and tails, more robust landing gear, a tailhook strong enough for routine use, a keel to withstand the unique forces and fatigue generated by repeatedly slamming onto the deck, etc. All this makes the aircraft considerably heavier than the other models, while using the same powerplant - patently not good.

So first you say that the fighter "was not weighted to navy specifications," then you proceed to list off five things they did to make it acceptable to the Navy. And this isn't really at all unique situation. Almost all Navy fighters had inferior performance to their AF counterparts due to the extra carrier equipment. (the only exception was the F-4.)

maus92 wrote:

As far as the corrosion specs go, if the were Navy driven, than it's a good thing considering the corrosion problems the air force is currently experiencing with its fleet of stealth aircraft, and I don't see how that has anything to do with my statement.

No, maybe you don't get what I'm saying. The JSF wasn't an AF project made to meet Navy specifications. It was a joint project right from the start of its CDP. The CV variant meant that the aircraft had to meet Navy specifications and metrics for almost everything, of which corrosion was one of thousands. There was no "weighting." It met their specifications or it didn't. In this very thread you had an account about the tailhook design had to meet stringent navy standards. In many ways the navy's requirements represented the lowest common denominator for common areas. For several parts of the F-35A's design has redundancies that go beyond AF specifications because they needed to meet Navy standards. In places where the design could not meet both specifications, you had the different variant.

I just wanted to go back to one post you made earlier....

maus92 wrote:

Hence we are in the situation we find ourselves today - trying to adapt what is an essentially land based design into something that can withstand the harsh operational environment inherent in carrier aviation. .

You know what's the irony of this comment? Basically all of the same changes were made to the YF-17 to create the F/A-18, yet you're here on a daily basis lauding the latter's performance.

I think that we are going to have to agree to disagree. Where we might find some agreement is that Navy aircraft generally have different performance characteristics due to design features necessitated by their operational requirements.

The YF-17 (a prototype) and the F-18A-C are very different aircraft, just as F-18A-C and F-18E/F are similar in appearance, yet much different.

maus92 wrote:

I think that we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I'm sorry, this isn't a debate about the aesthetic merits of an impressionist painting. You're wrong about your assertions about the F-111's specifications (which was written by probably the most knowledgeable researcher on that topic) and about the F-35C's specification, and its dismaying that you're unwilling to accept that.

maus92 wrote:

Where we might find some agreement is that Navy aircraft generally have different performance characteristics due to design features necessitated by their operational requirements.

Yes, on the whole, slower, heavier and less maneuverable than their AF counterparts.

maus92 wrote:

The YF-17 (a prototype) and the F-18A-C are very different aircraft, just as F-18A-C and F-18E/F are similar in appearance, yet much different.

Yes, its been redesigned and is slower, heavier and had less range than its (intended) Air Force counterpart... basically everything you claimed was "patently not good" about the F-35C. Yet its pretty clear that this is the rule for a lot of navy fighters, including the F-18.

However, they do tend to have excellent low-speed maneuverability as demanded by the specifics of carrier flight.

The F-35C is not an adaption of an existing "land-based design" and to insist so ignores the program reality (easily researched).

Such insistence is eerily like the practiced sophistry that we see all over the blogosphere on F-35. "Just stick to the talking points. If you repeat it enough it becomes reality..."

quicksilver - Sorry, the F-35C is an adoption of the STOVL design. This is made very clear in the tailhook issue. The frame of the F-35 ends early because of the design of the STOVL engine. As that is common across all airframes, the hook location (and the general shortness / fatness of the airplane) are direct consequences of the STOVL aircraft.

hb_pencil - As to the F-111, so what if the F-111 had a longer range, better bomb load, etc. The Navy wanted a fighter after Vietnam and no one here is seriously arguing that the F-111 is a better fighter than the F-14. (There is a tactical reason to defend the F-111 for supporters of the JSF program. The F-111 is a model of the poorness of previous joint fighter programs. Defending that implicitly defends the JSF....)

And finally, of course Navy fighter's won't be as good as USAF fighters. What maus92 may have been arguing was that a Navy designed strike fighter would be better than the F-35C, because it will be designed from the ground up for the Navy. An equivalent argument is that the F-18C will be better than a navalized F-16. (roughly similar fighter classes).

hb_pencil wrote:

maus92 wrote:

I think that we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I'm sorry, this isn't a debate about the aesthetic merits of an impressionist painting. You're wrong about your assertions about the F-111's specifications (which was written by probably the most knowledgeable researcher on that topic) and about the F-35C's specification, and its dismaying that you're unwilling to accept that.

maus92 wrote:

Where we might find some agreement is that Navy aircraft generally have different performance characteristics due to design features necessitated by their operational requirements.

Yes, on the whole, slower, heavier and less maneuverable than their AF counterparts.

maus92 wrote:

The YF-17 (a prototype) and the F-18A-C are very different aircraft, just as F-18A-C and F-18E/F are similar in appearance, yet much different.

Yes, its been redesigned and is slower, heavier and had less range than its (intended) Air Force counterpart... basically everything you claimed was "patently not good" about the F-35C. Yet its pretty clear that this is the rule for a lot of navy fighters, including the F-18.

Pensy, I'm truly sorry that you refuse to understand the facts that have been presented to you.

quicksilver wrote:

The F-35C is not an adaption of an existing "land-based design" and to insist so ignores the program reality (easily researched).

Such insistence is eerily like the practiced sophistry that we see all over the blogosphere on F-35. "Just stick to the talking points. If you repeat it enough it becomes reality..."

Congratulations. You just described the F-35 marketing program, some in government and the fan-base.

-Maneuverability is irrelevant.

-The F-35 is a "fifth-generation fighter".

-Model acquisition program

-Affordable

-Lethal

-Survivable

-Sustainable

-About the same price as an F-16 to acquire

-Cheaper than the F-16 to support

-Game-changer

-There will be thousands made.

-There are no alternatives to the F-35.

-Excellence is the enemy of good enough.

And some stellar quotes. I will pick only one this time:

"We do not agree with that estimate, there is no basis for that estimate, and we do not support it,"

General Davis, 2008, Then F-35 DOD PEO

You will make a good 'F-35 historian' one day elp. I guess you get 'slogans' from your own efforts back in the day eh. PPTs are only good with slogans that remind people otherwise of the spoken word or more detailed written word bumpf they may have already. And yes we all don't get to see these details do we. You were an USAF PPT maker - no?

A good thread on your own forum (which you either have not read nor understand) explains graphically why the proposed F-35C hook issues will be fixed:

F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-105.html
['alloycowboy' found this article which is a good companion to the POGO QLR PDF explanations of the intended fix: "Here is a news article from the NavyTimes:
Design blamed for F-35C tailhook issues: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/01/d ... es-011712/ ]
from:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-120.html
&
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-105.html
&
There are other recent threads about the hook issues also.

I've been out of the loop for a couple of months, and I keep coming across rumors that there's a catastrophic design flaw with the C (even though the USN apparently has plenty of time to fix what's wrong), but I haven't seen anything definitive. Is it that the tailhook is too short? I'm just curious if anything official has come out yet.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

I've been out of the loop for a couple of months, and I keep coming across rumors that there's a catastrophic design flaw with the C (even though the USN apparently has plenty of time to fix what's wrong), but I haven't seen anything definitive. Is it that the tailhook is too short? I'm just curious if anything official has come out yet.

There isn't. some of the critics, including ELP have tried to make it out to be a major disaster. The Ahern report (concurrency report) has suggested they will have to see after the next redesign. Individuals who are knowledgeable on the subject have suggested that it should be resolvable too. This includes Richard Aboulafia, who is one of the most highly respected aviation industry analysts in the world.

Last edited by spazsinbad on Jan 22, 2012 - 03:02 AM; edited 1 time in total

'1st503rdsgt' asked a question above. Rumours? What rumours. The question points to one possibility "Is it that the tailhook is too short?" Short answer - not likely. However (like the answer to 'how long is a piece of string') one might ask the questioner to narrow the question to something more definitive. Potential answers to potential rumours about tail hook current shortcoming could be found by searching this forum for 'hook' or similar search terms. Sad that topics go off topic but there you go - there is no actual one thread with all the bits in one place to answer a vague hook question. Some threads that may help with a potential answer - after first downloading the appropriate QLR PDF [http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/274217/dod-quick-look-ahern-report.pdf - do not download alternate version] but I have to be careful not to repeat myself for this doth trouble the '1st503rdsgt'.

In no particular order here are some thread topics with start URLs:

A brief history of tailhook design
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16571.html

F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing (another interminable incomprehensible spaz thread)
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-15767.html

DOT&E Problems with F-35B and Risks of Excessive Concurr [sic] (truncated due length)
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16721.html

F-35 Jet Showed ‘Mixed Results’ Tests, Pentagon Report Says (relevant 'maus92' found DOTE POGO report)
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16715.html

As time marches on and others answer I'll enter this info and add more as it is found. OK?

Another great 'maus92' find was the original POGO QLR leaked report here:
Concurrency QLR
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16715.html

This is the best QLR PDF example here (with tailhook issues unlike AvWeak version):
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2 ... report.pdf (19Mb)

An Oldie but a Goldie for some F-35A & F-35C hook info.
Arresting F-35s & Brake Testing
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-14400.html

Searching the F-35 forum for 'hook' will find probably more threads not listed above.

Nothing meaningful re the tailhook issue will be forthcoming until they test the new design later this year at which time we can discuss more intelligently.. lots of other JSF issues merit out attention and bandwidth.

Testing new hook should be soonish according to:

Is F-35 program flying high or sputtering? Posted Saturday, Jan. 21, 2012

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/01/21 ... gh-or.html

"...One of the more glaring problems spotlighted in recent weeks by news media and critics is that the tailhook on the F-35C, the version intended for the Navy to operate off aircraft carriers, failed repeatedly to snag the arresting wire in mock carrier landings last summer.

The Pentagon report that revealed the tailhook problem left no doubt that officials considered it potentially a very serious problem. Fixing it, the report said, might require major changes to the aircraft design, adding more delays and still more costs to the already soaring bills for the F-35.

Burbage, a former Navy pilot who made his share of carrier landings, understands the significance of the problem as well as anyone. There won't be many carrier landings if the tailhook doesn't catch and stop the plane when it lands.

It's a challenging issue, a more complex engineering problem than with past Navy planes because of the "stealth" design of the F-35C. Tailhooks ordinarily extend from the back of Navy planes at all times. The F-35C tailhook must be shorter and retract into the body of the aircraft so it doesn't ruin the plane's low visibility to radar signals.

Burbage says he's confident that Lockheed and the Navy can solve the problem without major and costly delays.

"We put our A team on it," Burbage said, with Lockheed engineers working closely with the Navy's top engineering and carrier aviation experts. "We did detailed engineering analysis. There are some physics problems related to the way the [arresting] wire reacts when the plane rolls over it."

By the end of the month, Burbage said, he expects the tailhook to be redesigned and new parts ordered from suppliers. By midsummer the new version should be flying at the Navy's Lakehurst, N.J., base, where carrier operations are tested on the ground. [Remember also this 'carrier' at NAS Lakehurst does not move much. Very Happy

]

"We'll go back and check it and see if we have to tweak it again," Burbage said, adding that he's confident that the F-35C will be ready and cleared for initial carrier testing schedule for 2013.

"I believe that's where we are. We need to prove it to people...."

Forum: Program and politics

U.S. Navy and U.K. Royal Navy F-35 unable to get aboard ship