F-35 on 60 Minutes this Sunday

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

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7719
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post18 Feb 2014, 04:57

I haven't watched the thing yet but am inclined to invest the time if only to experience the refreshing absence of the usual crybabies.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

gtx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 21:52
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Unread post20 Feb 2014, 19:55

How surprisingnow POGO is whinging that the story is biasedHeres What 60 Minutes Didnt Tell You About the F-35

:doh:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24277
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Feb 2014, 20:05

A quote from 'gtx' URL to POGO above. I am astonished. AS IF the world ran on press releases and promises. I wish.... :devil: So POGO provides empirical, verifiable data to foreign and domestic buyers of the F-35? Hmmmm....
"...POGO: How has Lockheed Martin been able to continue with the program, despite the cost overruns and delays?

WHEELER: Lockheed-Martin cannot design effectively performing, affordable combat aircraft, but they are without peer in designing a greasy plan to foist the aircraft on the US and multiple foreign buyers. I am in awe of their skill in doing that; they successfully convince otherwise rational people to ignore empirical data, to believe that press releases spout biblical truth and to embrace new promises in the face of scores of broken ones. Those are awesome powers...."

Austin Powers? :devil: Yeah BABY (but not seals OK) :mrgreen:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

gtx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 21:52
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Unread post20 Feb 2014, 20:08

What get's me with ones like POGO is that if the X-32 had been selected as the basis for the JSF, they would be complaining about big bad Boeing... and how they should stick to airliners... and how Lockheed Martin would have been soooooomuch better! :doh:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24277
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Feb 2014, 01:38

What do Brazil, Iraq, Egypt and 60 Minutes Have in Common? Missing Air Combat Exports
19 Feb 2014 SLDinfo

"...Theintenseresearch effort did not include the question of the global enterprise of the F-35, the clean sweep of allies in the Pacific or the key role of three manufacturing lines (two foreign) in the program.

One could certainly note that the head of the Joint Program office failed to get around to this point, but even a cursory google search would turn up all the folks buying the aircraft.

As one of the principals featured on the 60 Minutes program wrote to us:

IS this a global program? Amazing that gets overlooked.”

This not only means jobs, here and abroad, but a central role for the US working with its allies in shaping the next generation of air combat.

But that would not make a good visual."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/what-do-brazil-i ... t-exports/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

smsgtmac

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 866
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
  • Location: Texas

Unread post21 Feb 2014, 02:33

spazsinbad wrote:A quote from 'gtx' URL to POGO above. I am astonished. AS IF the world ran on press releases and promises. I wish.... :devil: So POGO provides empirical, verifiable data to foreign and domestic buyers of the F-35? Hmmmm....
"...POGO: How has Lockheed Martin been able to continue with the program, despite the cost overruns and delays?

WHEELER: Lockheed-Martin cannot design effectively performing, affordable combat aircraft, but they are without peer in designing a greasy plan to foist the aircraft on the US and multiple foreign buyers. I am in awe of their skill in doing that; they successfully convince otherwise rational people to ignore empirical data, to believe that press releases spout biblical truth and to embrace new promises in the face of scores of broken ones. Those are awesome powers...."

Austin Powers? :devil: Yeah BABY (but not seals OK) :mrgreen:


Since Wheeler IS the point man for POGO on 'Defense' these days, this is perhaps the single clearest illustration of how Wheeler and Co are a Self-licking Ice Cream Cone. :slap:
Normally they just reference each other: Sprey-Spinney-Wheeler-etal ad nauseum. I believe this does fulfill my thirst for knowledge about something I posted here just yesterday on another thread http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=24420&start=15 [bold large added)
Speaking of stupidity and laughing...One of Axe's stablemates has a 'piece' where in so many words he laments the CBS 60 minutes article for not having any views from people who have no idea what is going on in the program or an understanding of the technology. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/3914aaf3ce5d I'd love to know who's hand is on the spoon that's feeding him.
Now I know.
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24277
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Feb 2014, 03:13

At least this 'DefenseTech' website acknowledges the 'quote' as a "comment" on the 60 Minutes website which then translates to NEWS on this GIZZARDsticking website below again:

Is the F-35s Computer R2-D2 or HAL?
19 Feb 2014 Brendan McGarry
"...“The newhelmets are a hoot,” Neil Jones of England wrote in a comment on the programs website. “They made [Royal Air Force] pilots who used them dizzy, due to information overload. The night vision capability is awful, so pilots are flying virtually blind. We have swapped back to the helmet used by pilots who fly the Eurofighter.”

Source: http://defensetech.org/2014/02/19/is-th ... d2-or-hal/


Fine a comment (which is false in that the HMDS II & III continue, with the BAE 'Eurofighter helmet' KAPUT these days) acknowledged.

Go here for the news:

The F-35 has a friendly R2-D2 on board connected to an evil HAL 9000
Jesus Diaz 20 Feb 2014 (today? go figure)

"...The pilots hate this:
"The newhelmets are a hoot. They made RAF pilots who used them dizzy, due to information overload. The night vision capability is awful, so pilots are flying virtually blind. We have swapped back to the helmet used by pilots who fly the Eurofighter."


Source: http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-f-35-has- ... 1526383993
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 849
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post21 Feb 2014, 08:52

The force of the mouth breathers is strong. Shitty journalism much?
Offline

delvo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 690
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2011, 04:06

Unread post22 Feb 2014, 02:55

LinkF16SimDude wrote:Well after trying to watch the vertical landing piece on the CBS site and getting nothing but repeating commercials for financial companies ( :bang: ), found the same thing on youtube that cued up immediately. C'mon CBS, really??? And the thing about settling on the deck with forward stick pressure is a bit counter-intuitive. But hey...I'm a fixed wing guy. So what do I know? :wink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ye9auxJPVg
Test Pilot John Beasley says the controls were designed to be the same as on airplanes so it would be intuitive for plane pilots, with no mention of helicopters at all. I haven't flown any kind of aircraft. (I didn't get interested in them until I was too old to join a military service and already on a different career path.) But I am curious why two people who fly planes don't seem to intuit flying the same way. For example, Beasley specified that stick back = up and stick forward = down is programmed F-35 hovering behavior because it's also conventional forward flight behavior. Is the reason why it doesn't seem that way to you because of the difference between pitching up/down and moving the plane up/down?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24277
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Feb 2014, 04:06

Perhaps my earlier comment needs to be explained which perhaps 'LinkF16SimDude' was adding his comments. I do not know - you will have to ask him. However for a carrier fixed wing pilot landing using Optimum Angle of Attack as the 'airspeed' with power controlling rate of descent (and then there is lineup to consider) 'putting the nose down to land' is a big NO NO. That is my perspective. Apart from time learning basic/advanced flying techniques with the RAAF, my time was with the RAN FAA, which used the USN carrier landing technique; which is more or less standard today as it was forty odd years ago now. In fact the AoA indexer was invented for the early A-4s, which being delta winged, often would spear in on base turn when the pilot either: did not calculate appropriate airspeed for aircraft weight; or did not watch airspeed closely (looking down to dials) or both.

Looking at the AoA Indexer in the line of sight with the landing area (ship/shore) means it is easy to monitor all the requirements (power controlling glideslope with reference to the meatball). Getting back to my comment about 'putting the nose down to land'. This is a no no because of several issues. Putting the nose down decreases angle of attack and increases speed. The extra speed may break things on deck - aircraft gear/arrestor gear. Putting the nose down puts the hook point at the other end UP thus increasing chances of a bolter. Naval aircraft are designed to touch down in the ideal attitude at Opt AoA (a variable airspeed according to weight - within limits) to arrest with the hook point below the main gear by some amount. Being below the maximum arrested landing weight at optimum angle of attack will not break anything - as long as line up is good - within limits with no CRAB! :D

IF the LSO notes that the pilot put the NOSE DOWN TO LAND he will probably shout and scream insults during the debrief. :drool: I kid thee not. Putting the NDTL may get a sprog pilot sent home, depending on severity, because it also perhaps implies some deck spotting at the end. IE. the pilot looks away from the mirror/IFLOLS to look at the deck - to deck spot - and thinks that he is too high (not if on the ball) and instinctively - incorrectly - puts NDTL - which may cause the aforementioned.

So I hope you can see that 'put the nose down to land' is not instinctive for a carrier pilot. Perhaps it may be such for an air force pilot. :devil: Who may then bring the nose back up to flare above the runway. A carrier pilot does not have such a luxury. Precision is what carrier landings are all about, being heavily scrutinised by not only the LSO but anyone watching on the PLAT/whatever it is called today I forget (ILARTS).
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1089
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77550

Unread post22 Feb 2014, 04:33

I understand that stick forward is counter intuitive in fixed wing. Hell, even when I took lessons in a Cessna 172 it was a no no. However, the stick motion is comparable to a helicopters collective motion, which is down to reduce lift, and descend, and up to increase lift. With the flight control system taking care of level flight, sideways move seem logical by sideways motion on the stick, but how do they reposition forward or aft or speed up or slow down forward motion?
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24277
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Feb 2014, 04:40

Probably the F-35B flight control laws are best explained by either the people who designed them (over many years using the VACC Harrier in the UK) or by F-35B pilots themselves. A lot of this is already on the forum. Wait and I'll search for where it is. At the time the decision was made to use 'Unified Control Law' as used today there was controversy amongst those responsible. It seems today all agree it was the correct decision - all pilots report it is easy to adjust to the F-35B way of STOVL mode (with only the stick and throttle to use).....

Here is one thread: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=16196&p=205254&hilit=inceptors#p205254
&
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15671&p=200392&hilit=inceptors#p200392
&
SRVL thread: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=242814&hilit=inceptors#p242814
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post22 Feb 2014, 04:54

A Southwest Airlines pilot tried the "Nose Down To Land" technique in a 737 at LaGuardia (Laguadia). It didn't end well. The pilot-in-command (Captain) received a "Cut Pass" and was "DeQual'd" (fired) as a result. The Navy has a few extra steps like the FNAEB for such pilots after they DQ.

BTW As I recall, LSOs use the term "Eased Gun In Close" or "Eased Gun At Ramp" for such approaches.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24277
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Feb 2014, 04:57

And to clarify what I recall what I learnt - then had to unlearn in the RAN FAA - from the RAAF about landing.

An approach starts off faster than touchdown IAS (after the flare). This extra speed helps with the flare at the end and also enables extra controllability for the AIR FORCE aircraft. A carrier aircraft is usually designed to be extra controllable at approach speed hence the F-35C big wing, flapping flaps and such for that extra zing at approach speeds. The carrier centreline is always moving to the right during a carrier approach so the pilot has to nibble to the right constantly to stay on centreline - usually this happens very quickly to be almost imperceptible to unexperienced onlookers. Plus the carrier aircraft must respond quickly to pilot inputs including engine response at this slow speed. Apparently the F-35C is good on all these points.

So anyway using the extra speed on an air force style approach the flaps often are set only partially (whereas for carriers the aircraft is completely 'dirty' - flaps all way down, speedbrakes out if possible and hook/gear down) to be at Opt AoA all the way from downwind, base turn, approach and arrested landing.

Whereas the airforce will put more flap down as required and reduce speed and throttle to gently approach the flare point to then flare to waffle down the runway for a bit before gently touching down. All good stuff and kind to the aircraft. However with long runways the touchdown speed is not always critical after the flare as long as it is within limits with plenty of room to brake or even air brake (keep the nose/nosewheel up to use the high AoA with wheels on the ground to create high drag to slow the aircraft) then use the brakes when the nosewheel on the runway.
Last edited by spazsinbad on 22 Feb 2014, 05:19, 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: 24277
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Feb 2014, 05:02

'neurotech' doubtless LSO jargon/carrier landing nomenclature has changed over the last 40 odd years. I would guess that 'ease gun' refers to 'power/throttle'? So that is another way to deck spot (rather than watch the mirror/IFOLS all the way to touchdown / arrest) by taking off throttle (going down quickly at Opt AoA) to ensure an arrest occurs - at the ramp which is just before and over the ramp (which is large on a USN carrier). Often if done too dramatically the aircraft will 'hit the ramp' or more likely - if the LSO has allowed to aircraft to continue an otherwise good approach - the hook will connect with the ramp which may not be good for the hook or for the aircraft.

There is a list of official LSO symbols / acronyms / words they use to describe an approach so that when noted the approach can be described later at the LSO / pilot debrief. Often other jargon is introduced then (including a punch to the chest for being an Fwit!). And never argue with the LSO - he knows all - he saw it - you (the pilot) did not. :mrgreen:

If I am to be believed I have spent over a decade on and off gathering info new and old about carrier deck landing and associated info. Most of it is online at my web page as seen in my signature below if you are interested. I'm working on a new edition of the 4.4GB PDF about the A4G and stuff which includes the deck landing material (to add more about DLs) however when that will be finished I do not know. Meanwhile here is an old PDF page (from a PDF which may no longer be available at the URL I will post - however I'll check first) which shows the 'ease gun' as being jargon for an 'abrupt power reduction' (I do not recall that being used in my day but that does not mean a lot at my age). :doh:

This website now gone used to have an excellent collection of old 1970s or so carrier landing info but where now?
http://www.robertheffley.com/docs/CV_en ... 0063-2.pdf

This is the name of PDF so searching with GOOGLE should find three hits of interest perhaps:
'Hooks and McMurry--Pilot Behavior Models for LSO Training Systems--NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 80-C-0063-2.PDF' (1980-83)
Attachments
LSOeaseGunAbruptPowerReduction.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests