Forum: F-35 Design & Construction

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 492718.xml

Apparently Amy thinks it's too hot an noisy in the weapons bays. I wasn't aware that munitions rated to bake in the Persian Gulf sun and fly half-sideways on a SH pylon were so sensitive. Maybe they should get VA compensation for hearing loss and heat injury.

Quote:

Although the bay has not presented developers with conditions beyond the specifications of weapons slated for use in the F-35, engineers acknowledge there is little margin. “We are within about 10-12 degrees in most cases.

I'm not an engineer, but I have a hard time understanding how being cradled within a weapons bay could be more stressful than external carriage, especially when requirements ARE being met. Seems like the author is reaching here, but... a story's a story. Rolling Eyes

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by spazsinbad on Sep 21, 2012 - 12:44 AM; edited 2 times in total

I wonder if this quote implies having the weapons inside the bay for two days on the ground or in flight? Very Happy

...“We are within about 10-12 degrees in most cases. But it is close” to the design specifications of some weapons, says Charlie Wagner, weapons integrated project team lead for the F-35 Joint Program Office. “It is not that simple, though. Maybe I can get [a weapon] that hot. But can I get it hot for an hour? Or can it be that hot for two days?” ...

Interactive Graphic here:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/awe ... apons.html
&
http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/awe ... apons1.jpg

I wonder how the F-35 weapons bay temperatures compare to other aircraft with weapons bays including the F-22 under similar conditions.

spazsinbad wrote:

I wonder if this quote implies having the weapons inside the bay for two days on the ground or in flight? Very Happy

...“We are within about 10-12 degrees in most cases. But it is close” to the design specifications of some weapons, says Charlie Wagner, weapons integrated project team lead for the F-35 Joint Program Office. “It is not that simple, though. Maybe I can get [a weapon] that hot. But can I get it hot for an hour? Or can it be that hot for two days?” ...

I think it's a question of 2 days worth of operational cycles; but if the standards are being met, I don't really see how it's a problem. I mean, how much margin does Amy want? Isn't there already another engineering margin as well?

There are standards with margins everywhere which military equipment must not exceed. What is different in this situation? Just more FUD from AvWeak. Very Happy

Speaking of weapons bay, does anyone knows where is the f-35 chaff dispensing system?

f-22lm wrote:

Speaking of weapons bay, does anyone knows where is the f-35 chaff dispensing system?

ELINT, HUMINT, PHOTOINT, and ASKINT.

F-35 Electronic Warfare Suite: More Than Self-Protection April 1, 2006

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/militar ... n_845.html

"...The self-protection system includes a response manager and RF/IR countermeasures. Two countermeasure dispensers are located in the aft area of the aircraft, carrying IR flares and chaff. The IR flares are relatively small, allowing more to be carried than was possible in predecessor aircraft. The EW system claims a 440-hour mean time between failures. An onboard diagnostics and fault isolation system, which automatically downlinks data to maintainers, allows line replaceable modules to be ready when the aircraft returns to base. This should simplify logistics and increase combat sortie rates...."

GOOGLint. Very Happy

Thanks

spazsinbad wrote:

GOOGLint.

aka... OSint. Every time the Chinese or Russians come up with something new, everyone starts crying about espionage, not realizing that much of the "stolen" information is already on the internet for anyone diligent enough to do the research and connect the dots. Smile

I'd be willing to bet Amy a cup of coffee that the tests she described were not "jettison" tests, but were in fact separation tests. Before she writes about a topic, she should become more familiar with the terminology. In the store separation arena, jettison refers to emergency release of external stores at a very low airspeed, typically 200 kts. The tests she describe were safe separation tests, to verify the stores leave the airplane without striking the airplane, other mounted stores, or other separated stores and do not result in excessive loads on the airplane or store attachments. After the safe separation tests are complete, weapon accuracy tests will be conducted.

I don't know if jettison tests are planned for the F-35, but they were not conducted for the F-16 during development flight test.

I would guess that jettison needs to be tested for the flat deck landers - especially the VLers in our midst. If a store hangs up putting them over the VLB then they need to jettison whatever is convenient (assuming that more conventional methods and reducing fuel weight cannot do the job).

As I have discovered on this forum the Air Force land at heavy weights if possible - no worries. Very Happy

Not so aboard - there is always a max. landing weight for aircraft.

spazsinbad,
There is a "maximum design landing weight" for AF airplanes, but it is a misleading criterion. AF fighters commonly are designed for 10 ft/sec landing at "maximum design landing weight", which is normally substantially less than max takeoff weight, whatever the AF decides is appropriate. For example, early F-16s had a max takeoff weight of 33,000 lb (quickly raised to 35,400 lb) and a max design landing weight of 27,500 lb. The misleading part of "maximum design landing weight" is that there is also a requirement for 6 ft/sec landing for all takeoff weights, including MDTOW. Those 10 and 6 ft/sec landing requirements were applied to the F-16, but I don't know the F-35A requirements.

Based on watching hundreds of test flight landings, almost all are around 1 or 2 ft/sec, so heavy landings are, as you say, no worries, well almost.

The biggest problem with heavy landings is not gear strength, but brake energy limits. So with a heavy landing, aero braking is often employed to reduce brake energy requirements.

Thanks JW.

spazsinbad wrote:

Thanks JW.

Spaz,

"No Tailhooks Here!",

In your experience is there a "tellable" difference in bringing an A-4 aboard with and without stores?

I anticipate that the F-35C with JPALS will accomodate either configuration with the arresting gear?

Thanks in advance! Smile

Forum: F-35 Design & Construction

Problems with Weapons Bay?