UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23466
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post01 Nov 2019, 21:05

Hmmm, RN conventional aircraft carrier ops ceased c.1978 - a few years before same for the RAN (Royal Australian Navy). Sure RN fixed wing pilots have been on exchange with USN aircraft aboard CVNs along with a few deck crews etc. but it would be another giant leap to resurrect conventional fixed wing ops in the Royal Navy - with help of USN doable though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ark_Royal_(R09)
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23466
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 Nov 2019, 17:14

'Engines' Steve George etc. replies to 'LO' (youse know HOOM) and it is likely the last for the time being as he says at URL:
‘Engines’[replying to ‘LO’]
02 Nov 2019 Steve George

“...The empty weights I quoted were actual 'as weighed' from the 2016 OT&E report. Once again, for clarity, all three variants (that's A, B and C) have 'aggressively lightened airframes'.

Yes, the B and C don't have an internal gun, but the point I was trying to get over (and clearly not doing very well ) is that the B and C both have substantial 'penalty weights' for ship operation. (I suppose I could make the argument that the A model carries a penalty weight for having to have a gun - I believe that it was the only variant for which an internal gun was specified in the System Requirement Document). The B and C also lack the heavy boom refuelling receptacle that the USAF demanded for the A. Apples and oranges and all that....

LO is correct that the C was the last variant to be designed, but I'm not sure that this is relevant to the weight issues. For clarity, the original 'batting order' for the programme was A, then B, then C. Once the weight problem was realised around 2004, the weight reduction effort was focussed first on the B, as that was the variant most severely affected. From then on, the batting order ran B, A, then C. Almost all of the weight saving measures developed for the B were moved over to both the A and the C. What is true is that the C was able to exploit most of the B's weight saving changes earlier in its design cycle than the A, so there was less rework than on the A. One big measure it couldn't adopt, though, were the reduced size tail fins - the C had to keep its big fins for the low speed approach.

Yes, the F-35C does lack the F/A-18's slotted flaps, but that was driven by LO issues and known at the outset when the wing was sized. I have to gently disagree and say that, for my money at least, the F-35C's design is a perfectly valid example of a 'CV penalty'. I had some involvement in some of the CV specific design work and I can confirm that deck ops exacted a significant penalty in weight. The main thing I took away was that the DOD's selection of carrier approach speed (Vpa) as a Key Performance Parameter (KPP) was absolutely on the nail - it was the parameter that drove much of the C's design.

LM used CATIA, not always as well as other companies I worked with, but they got better as time went on. Yes, they wanted to limit the number of differences between variants, but during the weight reduction effort they had to make more compromises than they originally wanted. In some cases, it was found that 'commonality' was imposing severe weight penalties, and variant specific changes were essential. As to 'cousin parts', LM used the idea frequently, and had been for some time - McDonnell Douglas were certainly using them in the 1970s and 80s. As I've posted a number of times, LM made a poor job of the airframe design and, unforgivably for any combat aircraft but especially for a power lift aircraft, failed to keep control of airframe weight. In my view (and just opinion) it cost the programme at least two years and a ton of money.

I hope these posts help people understand that getting the F-35 programme across the line has been a massively difficult undertaking. Yes, one can pillory LM for not doing better. One can also recognise that they (and NG and BAES) have made some towering technical achievements along the way to get the programme to where it is now. And those achievements rest on sheer hard work and brilliance from thousands of dedicated people....”

Source: https://www.pprune.org/military-aviatio ... st10609112
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2731
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post02 Nov 2019, 17:37

“LM made a poor job of the airframe design and, unforgivably for any combat aircraft but especially for a power lift aircraft, failed to keep control of airframe weight.”

Those I know who participated in the program at the time believed the major design ’errors‘ revolved around features that enabled ease of manufacture at high production rates. And, when you change the design you also change the manufacturing system(s) that have to produce the design all the way down to the lowest tier suppliers. The true schedule consequence went beyond two years because implementation of the design changes overlapped with the inevitable discovery that begins w flight test.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23466
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Nov 2019, 23:57

Britains Biggest Warship S02E02 3rd November 2019 [59 minutes]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0jy88jtyQE

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23466
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Nov 2019, 00:41

Years ago there was a story about this UK F-35B mini-mover but nothing since. Nice to see it in use. Screenshot from Ep.2.
Attachments
UKminiHangarMoverF-35Bsmall.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23466
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Nov 2019, 00:52

MiniBeeMover photo from QE trials last year (via e-mail). Note bomb. Then zoom of da machina MANTIS-ESHA.
Attachments
MuleF-35BQEbomb2018trialsHangarCROPsmall.jpg
Mantis-EshaF-35BmoverQEtrials2018.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23466
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Nov 2019, 01:18

What's in a name? Everything: Harrier used MANTIS aircraft TUG: https://www.cw-ems.com/indal/products/h ... fault.aspx HARRIER TUG page attached https://s2.q4cdn.com/767595508/files/do ... ochure.pdf (1.1Mb)
Remote-controlled jump jet – Navy handlers test kit to move F35 on HMS Queen Elizabeth
02 Jan 2014 RN Navy News

"Royal Navy handlers and engineers have tested moving the Fleet Air Arm’s future jet around with a remote-controlled ‘trolley’. The team at Pax River, near Washington DC, tried the prototype of the Electric Shipboard Handler (Aircraft) to move the 23-tonne Lighting II around without the need to flash up its engine.

This is probably the world’s most expensive remote-controlled aircraft…

On the tarmac at Pax River – home of the US Marine Corps’ test pilots – PO(AH) ‘Knocker’ White tries out a natty piece of kit to move the Royal Navy’s next-generation jump jet.

This is the first run out for the Electric Shipboard Handler (Aircraft), designed to move the F35B Lightning II safely around the sprawling hangar of HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales. A team of Royal Navy and RAF engineers have been working at Pax River – officially US Naval Air Station Patuxent River – about 60 miles outside Washington for several years as they learn how to maintain the £120m stealthy strike fighter, which will replace the Harrier.

Among the challenges to overcome, ‘cold moves’ – shifting an empty jet around for maintenance and other purposes aboard the carriers. At 23 tonnes, the F35 is three times heavier than the legendary British jet it replaces.

So to help the aircraft handlers, the existing RAM handler used to move Fleet Air Arm Lynx and Wildcats and Army Air Corps Apaches has evolved into the ESHA.

The prototype was tested on two bitterly cold days at the Maryland air base with the Brits permanently attached to Pax joined by colleagues from Culdrose, Fleet HQ in Portsmouth, handler manufacturers Douglas, and the F35’s builders Lockheed Martin.

The aim is to build up as much ‘hands on’ experience so that using the ESHA for real on the deck of the Queen Elizabeth will be a doddle (technical term) when it flies aboard in 2018 with all the handler thoroughly tested in advance.

The UK owns three F35Bs at present, but it was one of the US Marine Corps’ jump jets – identical in every respect – used for the test, BF5, which was used on the recent landing/take-off trials on the USS Wasp off the Eastern Seaboard of the USA."



Source: https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... d-jump-jet
Attachments
MANTIS Harrier TUG Curtiss-Wright-Naval-Handling-Systems-Brochure.pdf
(61.06 KiB) Downloaded 56 times
13P00626_03.jpg
Last edited by spazsinbad on 05 Nov 2019, 01:35, edited 1 time in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23466
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Nov 2019, 01:26

Attachments
DrT0o9JX0AAzfzg.jpg
DrGpjPlW4AAe2bD.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23466
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Nov 2019, 01:44

ONLY SLDinfo could muck up foto with a caption covering the MOST important part - ESHA. You know I like to complain.

https://sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... 37-004.jpg (3.9Mb) [original ZOOMED & ZOOMied again]
Attachments
MANTIS-ESHAliftQEtrials2018.jpg
MANTIS-ESHAliftQEtrials2018zoom.jpg
181008-N-ZB537-004cropSMALL.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23466
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Nov 2019, 10:31

HMS Queen Elizabeth Flight Deck Thermal Metal Spray - Non-Skid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmO5wQmNbe8

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

notkent

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 05 Apr 2019, 18:06

Unread post05 Nov 2019, 15:10

Those lifts on the British aircraft carrier look huge, big enough for 2 F-35s, they are rated to lift 2-F-35. There are some nice pictures at the manufactures site; https://www.mactag.com/defence/aircraft-lifts
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23466
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Nov 2019, 21:27

LIFFTs are handy fings (mail last week). LIFT me DOWN (McTaggart) Scottie!
Attachments
LIFTmailQEoct2019.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2204
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post06 Nov 2019, 02:31

spazsinbad wrote:HMS Queen Elizabeth Flight Deck Thermal Metal Spray - Non-Skid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmO5wQmNbe8



Good thing that thermal metal spray paint whatever is doing a smashup job. It's not like the aero and thermal guys @ LM had any clue wot they were a doin'.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23466
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Nov 2019, 02:57

Long ago 'QS' made the point (I paraphrase) that "the NON-SKID deck coating of whatever flavour is protecting itself." Perhaps one may argue a secondary effect is deck protection (from rust or whatever) but the NON-SKID needs to remain on the deck as long as possible so that the NON-SKID effects are retained. We have seen the old USN NON-SKID deteriorate rapidly on CVNs especially under the target wire and the landing area generally - that is WEAR and TEAR also. NOTHING protects the flight deck like strong appropriate metallurgy. This has been demonstrated time and again over the years.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2204
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post06 Nov 2019, 03:14

I just tire of the neverending, incessant "OMH the deck will MELT if not for this super duper paint we put on it" meme(s).
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests