6 F-35s land on Wasp for testing

[spazsinbad]

Wade through the tortured prose to get an idea of how the F135 power module got to be on a V-22 going to USS Wasp.

Shaping a New Capability for the Osprey: Delivering the F-35 Engine to the USS Wasp
14 Jun 2015 Robbin Laird

"...As Chotkowski put it with regard to the engine: “the F-35 engine is modular”.

This facilitates maintenance for one is able to troubleshoot issues within the engine itself and then isolate the problem to a particular module and then swap it out and replace it with a good module.

This allows the maintainer then to put the engine back together and allow it to fly its next mission, instead of requiring test cells to verify the engine.

With regard to the engine for the B, there are nine modules, five of which are engine related and four of them are lift system related.”

But the largest module is quite large and with the surrounding container to protect the engine, a challenge for normal replenishment methods at sea.

The cables to move parts and supplies between a Military Sealift Command (MSC) ships and carriers or amphibious ships max out at 10,000 pounds of lift, and the engine’s power module is about that weight. This means that mods will have to be made to the cabling lift system to move heavier material, such as the power module.

According to Chotkowski: “There is a 12,000 pound lift system developed but it will go only onto new ships that are being built or will need to be retrofitted in existing Nimitz or L-deck ships, and supply ships, which will require investment dollars.”

Alternatively, one can carry the power module below a helicopter like the CH-53 but there are the challenges of safely carrying the engine below the helo while operating at sea as well. And MSC can contract a Super Puma, but you would not want to fly an engine “dangling underneath the aircraft for any length of time,” Chotkowski cautioned.

As Chotkowski explained: “We have containers for each one of the modules for the engine as well as the lift system. The one that presents us the biggest problem is the power module because of the fact that the two methods of resupply available to us for those two service’s, that being vertical replenishment (VERTREP) or connected replenishment (CONREP) are both tasked to their maximum extent of the capability that exists today.”

The Osprey seemed a potential solution to this problem, but it first had to be determined whether the module could fit in the Osprey and then if it did so successfully, could it be transported safely given the operating characteristics of the Osprey itself. Being able to carry the power module inside the Osprey, plus its ability to be refueled meant that the Osprey became a very desirable solution set for the power module supply issue.

To determine whether this could be done, industry invested its own money in an effort to shape a possible way ahead.

According to Chotkowski” “Pratt and Whitney started the process and started to look at the capability of utilizing the V-22 to get the loaf of bread inside the breadbox, so to speak.”

Pratt put together a non-disclosure agreement with Bell-Boeing and the companies began to work on how to do this.

As Chotkowski described the process: Bell Boeing was extremely receptive to working with us on a solution.

So we put together an NDA, and then we kicked off a basic design for length, width, height, maximum: how big is the breadbox, and how big is our loaf of bread, and how can we minimize the profile of a container that will transport this power module, but still keep that loaf of bread secure.

The challenge is that the loaf of bread is almost the same size as the inside of the V22. We had about three inches of play.

We had to make a very low-profile skid, and taking into consideration the basics of does it fit and will it go for the ride?

And go for the ride meaning, the engine’s ability to take whatever shock instances the aircraft incurs, either through landing or during loading, or during flight of the aircraft, as well as vibratory considerations with the V22 itself.

Although the Marine Corps was apprised of this activity, there was no requirement no government funding in place for this project. It was company driven, but customer appraised.

The Marines did fly an Osprey to the P&W facilities in Connecticut during the evaluation process, so that the P&W engineers could have accurate measurements and discuss operations with loadmasters and aircrew to craft a realistic solution set, including loading and unloading the module through the door which was about the size of the module with container cover.

Secretary Stackley, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research Development and Acquisition) pushed hard for a solution set for the power module resupply problem and the emerging skid solution seemed to fit the bill.

Industry designed the concept skid. This was an eight to nine month process. But the next step was for the Marine Corps working with the Joint Program Office to build the rapid prototype skid seen aboard the USS WASP. Major General Walsh, Director of Expeditionary Warfare in OPNAV, was instrumental in transitioning the effort from industry to JPO sponsorship, and the JPO money crucial in funding the prototype skid.

In short, the next phase of the Osprey now includes modification to become the key connector for power module resupply for the Navy fleet in support of the USMC...."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/shaping-a-new-ca ... -uss-wasp/

[spazsinbad]

Earlier (SO THESE ARE OLD VIDEOS) 'QS' found the 'Butler DID IT' [on the WASP] videos here:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27345&p=291729&hilit=Butler+substantial#p291729

NOW two are on Youtube.

F-35B trials in USS Wasp, May 2015, part III [& IV]
Published on May 28, 2015 ON THE ROGER

"Vid by aviationweek.com
Read more at https://ontheroger.proboards.com "

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Part V looked like B-Roll footage for the opening of Top Gun 2. Great stuff.

[spazsinbad]

Part V from DoD already on this thread but here it is 'ON THE ROGER' (BTW this is the term from the olden prop days for being "on glideslope' and used in the UK RN FAA SHAR worlde of olde for same). https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-PJVf ... dLQ/videos

[Jon]

Thanks Spazsinbad

That confirms for me the identity of all six aircraft (listed below). The one I couldn't fully confirm was VK-17 - only knew that it was nose number 17 up till the above video.

F-35B 168719 VK-01 of VMFA-121
F-35B 168721 VK-03 of VMFA-121
F-35B 168722 VK-04 of VMFA-121
F-35B 168840 VK-17 of VMFA-121
F-35B 169023 VM-10 of VMFAT-501
F-35B 169024 VM-11 of VMFAT-501

[spazsinbad]

'Jon' keep in mind one F-35B in the test was replaced during the testing. viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27345&p=291697&hilit=Wasp+replaced#p291697 found by 'zerion'.

Tests show Lockheed’s F-35B ‘right at home at sea,’ U.S. Marines say
27 May 2015 ABOARD THE USS WASP | BY ANDREA SHALAL

"...One F-35B jet had to fly back to shore after a landing gear warning signal came on after takeoff, but it was replaced by another jet standing by at a North Carolina Marine Corps base, officials said. They called the incident minor...."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/ ... TZ20150527

[spazsinbad]

Photo of B '17' with VMFA-121 'VK' aboard WASP is on page 14 of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27345&p=292192&hilit=anotherie#p292192

[spazsinbad]

The P&W spokesperson wappididywap in PARIS airshow June 2015 video about the P&W F135 engyne here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJEhIso7ics says that during the OT-1 test some 100 VLs with STOs ranging from 350 to 500 feet were carried out - a bit meaningless because we do not know STO weights however it gels with other info from other CVF spokesperson wappididywap2 "300 feet from ramp" was it? AFAIK.

[quicksilver]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/04/14/docs- ... hot-noisy/

A little history to remind some about what a long putt ship ops were supposed to be.

Astonishing that some of these people have any skin on their hands for all the hand-wringing that was going on.

[spazsinbad]

Similar HEADline, Same Reporter here - one has to ask - was this reporter wearing Ear Protectors/Muffs whatever? Probably not:

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/nois ... h-testing/ 27 May 2015

[spazsinbad]

A THERMION Brochure Page I have not seen before - text quote from there: BTW the spelling is atrocious in this PDF.

TH604 “CERAMIC CORE”
11 Sep 2003 QUALITY ASSURANCE OFFICE Laboratory Division

"TH604 is a ceramic oxide core wire composed of aluminum and up to 46% by volume of ceramic oxides. This is “patented” process which allows a high percentage of ceramic within an aluminium matrix.

...PURPOSE:
To provide a wear resistant surface to steel and aluminum that is long lasting and protects against corrosion while maintaining an average coefficient of friction of 1.1.

USES:
1. Corrosion, wear, abrasion, and impact, when applied to a steel substrate this material will provide corrosion protection and wear resistance properties. It provides equal corrosion protection as that of pure aluminum and wear resistance far superior to that of any material presently known to have both these unique properties....

...3. Anti-skid coatings for car/truck ramps, forklift loading ramps, aircraft landing areas, or any application requiring both nonskid and corrosion protection....

...* The Ceramic Core material is applied with higher density to obtain the maximum wear for high surface contact areas."

Source: http://www.thermioninc.com/pdf/TH604brochure.pdf (8.6Mb)

[spazsinbad]

Some more ALIS onboard WASP during OT-1 info.

An Update on F-35 Maintenance: The Perspective from the USS WASP and From MCAS Beaufort and Yuma
22 Jun 2015 Robbin Laird

"...And reports from the operators aboard the USS WASP were that the ALIS system worked well. Major Brendan Walsh, USMC, FMFA-121 Operations Officer, Yuma, Arizona noted the following with regard to ALIS performance and the way ahead:

"The way developmental tests use ALIS is completely different from the way that the operational squadron use ALIS. So, because those aircraft are very unique compared to the fleet aircraft, they don’t use the standard systems that are here. It’s kind of an apples and oranges comparison in that respect.

We spend a lot of time trying to risk reduce coming out here for the ship and transfer. That was a major portion of our planning to make sure that went very smoothly, and as we’ve already stated it did go incredibly smoothly.

As far as the deployable capability we currently have SOUV 1, that’s Squadron Operating Unit Version 1 onboard and that is permanently installed in racks. We have a special space, and this was provided through NAVSEA, special space for the appropriate security and classification to have it on board. It’s essentially bolted into the space right now.

And then when the SOU Version 2 comes out which is already being delivered to 121 in Yuma, then that will allow us to do one of the unique things with amphibious shipping is our ability to disembark from amphibious shipping once we get in the theater. Then it’s something that is very unique to this ship into the units that embark with this ship is we don’t necessarily have to stay aboard the ship.

The operational environment, the requirements say go ashore, and base ashore, and base of foreign operating bases. SOUV 2 will allow us for all intents and purposes, the same hardware is packaged differently and will allow us to take it off and put it in a forward operating base and to operate effectively and efficiently closer to troops away from the sea base we have currently."

Progress has clearly been made to date with regard to F-35 maintenance and a solid foundation is being laid for the US and its partners to sort out an effective path ahead.

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/an-update-on-f-3 ... -and-yuma/

[spazsinbad]

ARTICLE below is long - ONLY the NONskidBITs there - other FOD not relevant. ANOTHER thread has the information about the BONHOMME RICHARD problems: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=277230&hilit=Thermion+Bonhomme#p277230

Nonskid, unforeseen problems plague ship maintainers
29 Jun 2015 Lance Me. Bacon

"NEWPORT NEWS, Va. — Heavily corroded tanks and voids that greatly increased yard time and cost are not the problem they once were, but Navy maintainers are now plagued by unforeseen problems with gas turbine engines and problems with nonskid. In fact, the latter has crippled a second ship less than one year after a botched resurfacing delayed the deployment of amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard.

Nonskid laid on the amphibious transport dock Mesa Verde in early May didn't cure right, Navy Times has learned. The Bonhomme Richard had the same problem last year, when a $2.3 million resurfacing passed initial tests but didn't hold up in hot weather. Officials blamed the problem on a lack of ventilation in the large enclosures used at Fleet Activities Sasebo, Japan.

Bonhomme Richard was the "straw that broke the back," according to Rear Adm. Bryant Fuller, chief engineer of Naval Sea Systems Command. There had been numerous reports of delaminating and cracking aboard the big deck, as well as foreign object damage to Marine AV-8B Harrier engines, Fuller told attendees of the MegaRust 2015 Naval Corrosion Conference.

A Failure Review Board convened after Bonhomme Richard. Authority for nonskid departures from specifications (there were 16 in the past year) was taken from waterfront chief engineers and had to be approved by Vice Adm. William Hilarides, head of Naval Sea Systems Command. Fuller, who likened this to car keys being taken from a young driver, said the engineers "got our keys back about six weeks ago," just before the problems on Mesa Verde surfaced.

Without a pause, nonskid was identified as the biggest challenge for carriers and amphibs by Ray Vickers, corrosion control program manager for Naval Air Force Atlantic. Failures are expensive, and compounded by the introduction of the Joint Strike Fighter and V-22 Osprey.

Nonskid did not hold up well amid the force and heat from the F-35B, the Marines' jump-jet variant of the JSF. A new Highly Tolerant Temperature Resistant thermal spray nonskid coating was applied to the amphibious assault ship Wasp, which is hosting the JSF's shipboard operational tests, and has held up "really, really well," Fuller said.

Joking that an F-35 engine costs about as much as an aircraft carrier, "to FOD one of those engines, especially while it's doing [testing and evaluation] type stuff, really would have been bad," he said. "We don't want to be anywhere close to being responsible for FOD'ing one of those things."

Officials called on engineers to expand the life expectancy of nonskid. Polysiloxane nonskid shows promise, as it has higher temperature resistance. Officials expressed interest in the robotic application of thermal spray, [THERMION by ROBOTS] while companies such as PENTECH Inc. have developed a spray application designed to prevent pinholes and provide an even application. Jessup Manufacturing also demonstrated the first approved peel-and-stick nonskid to compete with 3M, which will likely drive a price drop...."

Source: http://www.navytimes.com/story/military ... /29279173/

[spazsinbad]

From 'Combat Aircraft Monthly August 2015' a story about OT-1 with F-35Bs aboard USS Wasp May 2015 (6 pages into 3).

OT-1 on the USS Wasp
August 2015 James Deboer

"As the US Marine Corps detaches its F-35Bs to the USS Wasp for operational sea trials, Combat Aircraft embarks for this special report. report and photos: James Deboer

The deck of the Wasp is equipped with a thermal coating at landing spots numbers 7 and 9. NAVSEA was on board for the latest trials, looking at the deck spots and where the take-off shots are initiated, these being the areas most susceptible to heat damage from the Lightning II’s massive Pratt & Whitney F135 engine....

... [Maj Richard Rusnok] A major emphasis was supportability, from changing an engine to the mundane task of changing a tire. [until it explodes]...

...Rusnok is no stranger to short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) operations. ‘As a former Harrier pilot, the major difference for me is the level of automation and how you fly the aircraft. One of the things that [made] it harder for a Harrier pilot is that when you wanted to land on the ship you pulled the power back with your left hand. In the F-35, when you want to land you push forward on the stick. So, whether you are flying in conventional or STOVL mode, if you want to make the trees get bigger, you push forward on the stick. I have had the opportunity to take non-pilots into the simulator and they pick it up so quickly because of the simplicity of the thought process.’

Because many of the crew were not around for DT-1 or 2, the first few days of OT-1 consisted of getting used to operating the larger F-35 on the deck. Rusnok again: ’We have been working through all kinds of procedures during the first week, streamlining them. That is why you have seen us getting airplanes on the deck and getting them back up in the air two minutes later.’...

...Night quals In terms of night efficiency, each of the 10 pilots had to take off and land aboard the Wasp four times at night in order for the test to be considered a success. Pilots were not allowed to employ the aircraft’s advanced electro-optical and night vision systems but rather used signals from the Landing Signal Officer (LSO). Part of the night flying familiarization ‘was to create a core cadre of pilots that have had the opportunity to fly at night aboard ship as well as create a bunch of LSO guys that can go out and populate the fleet’, said Rusnok.

Maj Michael H. Rountree, who served as the LSO for OT-1 and is assigned to VMFAT-501 as aviation maintenance officer, explained: ‘We use the night pattern for un-aided recovery... We are not approved to use the night vision camera or distributed aperture system in the ship environment yet. We are simply using the naked eye to get us onto the ship. We fly an approach that funnels us into a good position to take over and land the jet visually.’

Rountree added that ‘the jet was easier to fly than the AV-8B Harrier II, and I was a lot less terrified to carry out a night landing in the F-35B for the first time compared to the Harrier!’...

...‘I went out there for the first time to fly at night and everything went smoothly. With the controls and interface between the pilot and aircraft so seamless and the task loading so low, this aircraft is really a joy and a pleasure to fly.’

Of the 10 pilots chosen for OT-1, not all of them were Harrier pilots. Maj Brendan Walsh serves as the VMFA-121 operations officer and is a former Hornet pilot with two cruises on aircraft carriers under his belt. He stated: ‘For me, it’s easier to get the F-35B on the deck than a Hornet on a carrier landing. I attribute that to the aircraft itself. Launching is also a little less emotional than a catapult shot. There is a little more control and you are not hanging on for dear life’....

...Lt Cdr Beth Kitchen from the Royal Navy served as the OT-1 evolutions lead: ‘The difference between DT-1 and 2, and OT-1, is that this is the first time that Marines are fully in charge of maintenance’. Kitchen added: ‘ALIS has done exceptionally well during OT-1. Another thing we wanted to make sure was that we had enough space to take an engine out and get a new one in. We did that successfully.’...

...In the end, 10 pilots were qualified for carrier take-offs and landings, and several LSOs were trained to get the aircraft on deck." [maintainers dun good also]

Source: Combat Aircraft Monthly August 2015

[XanderCrews]

Thank you for the post. I love quotes from the operators. Can't get enough of them.