VFA-147 at Sea

F-35 unit & base selection, delivery, activation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7503
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post04 Sep 2018, 23:35

If only it had a second engine, it would have made it back to the carrier
Oh wait... :devil:
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post04 Sep 2018, 23:58

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Robust single engine ability to fly back to the boat after a class A mishap involving the engine.


Perhaps that was their only choice. No fuel, no beach for you.
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post05 Sep 2018, 00:01

outlaw162 wrote:
Not sure what you imagine a basket to look like.


Pretty much the same as what I saw about 3 feet away doing P&D refueling for 2000 hrs in the Hun. :D

Two more questions....

What's the USN philosophy about diverting to shore with an engine problem if possible as opposed to putting it on the boat? If the Hornet went to Oceana and the F135 engine appeared robust, why didn't the F-35C go to Oceana just in case?

Secondly, will this be in the movie?


Fuel state, and/or they didn't want to risk running a FOD'd engine any longer than necessary. Would have been nice to have two.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4774
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post05 Sep 2018, 00:15

maus92 wrote:
outlaw162 wrote:
Not sure what you imagine a basket to look like.


Pretty much the same as what I saw about 3 feet away doing P&D refueling for 2000 hrs in the Hun. :D

Two more questions....

What's the USN philosophy about diverting to shore with an engine problem if possible as opposed to putting it on the boat? If the Hornet went to Oceana and the F135 engine appeared robust, why didn't the F-35C go to Oceana just in case?

Secondly, will this be in the movie?


Fuel state, and/or they didn't want to risk running a FOD'd engine any longer than necessary. Would have been nice to have two.



Why would you purposely run a FODed engine longer than necessary if you didn't have to? :roll: :doh:
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21692
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post05 Sep 2018, 01:07

As I said earlier - perhaps the F-35C engine was not seen as damaged until maintenance looked at it on the carrier deck.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21692
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post05 Sep 2018, 01:28

maus92 wrote:
outlaw162 wrote:
Not sure what you imagine a basket to look like.


Pretty much the same as what I saw about 3 feet away doing P&D refueling for 2000 hrs in the Hun. :D

Two more questions....

What's the USN philosophy about diverting to shore with an engine problem if possible as opposed to putting it on the boat? If the Hornet went to Oceana and the F135 engine appeared robust, why didn't the F-35C go to Oceana just in case?

Secondly, will this be in the movie?


Fuel state, and/or they didn't want to risk running a FOD'd engine any longer than necessary. Would have been nice to have two.

Sadly March 2018 these dead F/18-F aircrew had two engines: viewtopic.php?f=47&t=53963
OR
Oz Growled Dun Growled:
"...The investigation has confirmed a high-pressure compressor in the Growler's engine had broken into three major pieces, with one segment piercing through the bottom of the jet and taking a chunk out of the runway. Another piece of the compressor went sideways through the second engine causing severe damage, while the third piece went up and destroyed the right-hand tailfin before flying away..." viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=400026&hilit=destroyed#p400026
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4701
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post05 Sep 2018, 02:45

spazsinbad wrote:Seems to me that the F135 is a very robust engine when debris from the basket does not kill it. Must be reassuring at least for those wavering about single engine carrier aviation ops. Would be good to know more details about whys & wherefors.



They call it "graceful degradation" meaning it can take considerable battle damage and continue to operate.....The P&W J-57 in the F-8 Crusader had a very good reputation in that regard.

8)
Offline

marauder2048

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 352
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post05 Sep 2018, 02:56

spazsinbad wrote:Must be reassuring at least for those wavering about single engine carrier aviation ops.


Well the Navy did just predicate most of the long range utility of the CVW on a single engine refueling concept.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21692
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post05 Sep 2018, 03:24

It is just amazing to me. I have 1600 hours in single engine jets of old with some carrier aviation time in the good ole A4G. Sure when the engine or the engine shroud failed that was it - then an ESCAPAC let down - which I have not done myself.

Carrier aviation has a long memory with perhaps the current USN not quite feeling it because of circumstances. The SKYHAWK introduced BUDDY TANKING in the 1950s. Hose & Drogue has been in the USN since then. They know all about it and have planned for it in every which way but loose. We do not know the circumstances of current mishap however already there are calls for all kinds of stuff that really is not required. Military aviation is dangerous, Carrier aviation is slightly different if I may say so. There will be plans for all kinds of air refueling scenarios, both around the carrier and during missions far afield. I'm impressed - for whatever reason the F135 gobbled some drogue bits and returned safely.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

krieger22

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2018, 22:02

Unread post05 Sep 2018, 10:13

Throwing it out on Reddit hooked an interesting, if irate, comment chain: https://reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comme ... ap/e5euhg4

I'll try poking around for more details.

It's quite unusual that they had enough confidence in it to have it land on the carrier too - I wonder if the barricade was prepped in case.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4774
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post05 Sep 2018, 13:07

krieger22 wrote:It's quite unusual that they had enough confidence in it to have it land on the carrier too


Why?

krieger22 wrote: I wonder if the barricade was prepped in case.


They probably did the same thing they would for any other aircraft that had just swallowed FOD.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 847
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post05 Sep 2018, 16:22

That F135.....what a tough engine!!
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1764
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post05 Sep 2018, 16:35

krieger22 wrote:Throwing it out on Reddit hooked an interesting, if irate, comment chain: https://reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comme ... ap/e5euhg4

I'll try poking around for more details.

It's quite unusual that they had enough confidence in it to have it land on the carrier too - I wonder if the barricade was prepped in case.


In that reddit, one bogey-spades states

bogey-spades wrote:Nevermind that the jet proved it couldn't safely operate in modern carrier cyclic ops.


I am interested as to what 35_aoa has to say about the above statement regarding the F-35 not being able to safely operate in modern carrier cyclic ops. I don't have any context with which to evaluate bogey-spade's reddit comments. He states that he was flying, but does not state what he was flying, or flying in, and neither does he state that he (she?) is a pilot. IMO he (or she?) writes in a manner that would seem to lead the reader to assume that he is a Navair fast jet pilot. But for whatever reason, he is not a big fan of the F-35. (Maybe he owns a LOT of Boing stock? Dunno.)
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1156
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post05 Sep 2018, 18:37

As I said earlier - perhaps the F-35C engine was not seen as damaged until maintenance looked at it on the carrier deck.


from wiki:

The F135's health management system is designed to provide real time data to maintainers on the ground. This allows them to troubleshoot problems and prepare replacement parts before the aircraft returns to base.


I assume the 'ground' also includes the boat. This engine 'data-link' may be the reason they put it back on the boat....or shouldn't have.

One would think Class A damage would show up in the data somewhere....if not, the real time heath mgmt system would seem to be somewhat less than useful as intended.

Where is 35aoa when you need him? Maybe he was driving the tanker. :shock:

(BTW that pic of the F-18 with the shredded basket and the shattered canopy looks like something more catastrophic happened than 'basket debris'.....maybe a basket skip hit off the canopy....)
Offline

marauder2048

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 352
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post05 Sep 2018, 19:49

Actually the incident was already accounted for in the Navy's mishaps figures.
Attachments
class-a-aviation-mishaps-29-aug-2018.png
navy-short-summary-aviation-class-a.png
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Units

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest