Navy: F-35C Will Be Eyes and Ears of the Fleet

[spazsinbad]

IN the main video and in perhaps one of the audio excerpts the USMC LtCol mentions training/developing tactics at Yuma in the FMS (and I guess they have other things there also). This is what the USMC had to say some months back.

USMC Eyeing F-35B Ops Cost Reductions 18 Jun 2013 Amy Butler AWIN First

"...The service is already flying aircraft using the limited 2A software release at Eglin AFB, Fla., for pilot and maintenance training, and at Marine Corps Fighter Attack Squadron 121 in Yuma, Ariz. Though the software fielded is limited — allowing for basic takeoffs, approaches and familiarization flights — the F-35 simulators fielded for training already include a version of the more advanced 3F software package. Lockheed Martin is still working to compete the operational release of the software, but Schmidle says what has been included in the simulator is allowing for pilots to begin training beyond the capabilities of the aircraft. Ultimately, this should ease the transition from IOC in December 2015 to a full operational capability (FOC) later with the 3F software package, which includes more advanced electronic warfare options and a full weapons suite. “We are designing and flying tactics that we probably won’t fly in the airplane [soon] with the simulators,” Schmidle says. “FOC will be a natural extension of what we are doing” now at Yuma.

Advances in simulator technology have allowed for the equipment to go from being a tool in the past used to train pilots in procedures, to now being useful for advanced tactics training. Ultimately, 52% of the training syllabus for the F-35B will be handled in the simulator, also reducing the CPFH for the aircraft."

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 02.xml&p=2

[spazsinbad]

Main One Hour Video now on Utube - the Sbend version.

[maus92]

[quote="spazsinbad].... “No longer can we allow these aircraft to get grimy at sea” as was the practice with conventional jet aircraft, he observed....”[/quote]

You've seen nothing yet!, America's greatest innovations come when massive effort is implemented in escaping the dreaded "scrubbing detail". [/quote]

No problem. Just park all the F-35Cs on the flight deck, then re-adjust the flush deck nozzles - instant plane wash!

[basher54321]

To take from that:

Navy Pilots hope the C gets the nickname "The Reaper" instead of Lightning 2

F-35C landing on the ship will be automatic via the Flight control system (Delta Flight Path) - could be primary approach method with manual pilot control as backup. (Likely to change Naval aviation and remove the challenge of carrier landings.)

SEAD likely as a mission (when software installed).

6 x F-35Bs on LHA/LHDs to multiply super Carrier force.

F-35 is a Must have - can go where 4th gen can't (vulnerabilities increasing too fast against 4 Gens).

Going to have to wash aircraft more than once a month to maintain LO.

They want a longer range missile than the AIM-120(D?) - stated this is a limiting factor for whole US Fleet.


Blown out of proportion problems:

Tailhook on C
[*]Redesigned hook now in place and in testing

HMD
[*]Jitter - difficult to stabilise symbols for pilot during manoeuvres
[*]Night vision camera - show stopper (being redesigned)
[*]Light leakage at night - too bright (being redesigned)
[*]Predicts it will be a success and paths to fix are progressing
[*]Is a different concept - took 50 hours to get used to it.
[*]Gen 2 helmet in currently in use

[spazsinbad]

'basher' thanks for the summary. I have been meaning to excerpt the audio for 'delta flight path' F-35C carrier landing part [ oops it is on the previous page in the 'deltaflightpath' audio ]. This story that the F-35C will likely make regular auto landings via JPALS has been in the wind for a long time. Even USN LSOs think a fully manual landing will be an exception. JPALS brings huge accuracy to auto landings such that an individual arrestor wire can be targeted amongst many other things. X-47B demonstrates the accuracy of JPALS enabled auto robotic landings. Add in the nice view at night via DAS/HMDS with auto landings and things should be OK even for nuggets.

[basher54321]

I didn't think they would be going that far straight away myself.
The potential is there (like driverless cars) to make it (landings) safer - but with any software system various bugs due to untested conditions will be present and will take a few years to iron out. After that it should be great but fingers crossed for the initial participants.

[spazsinbad]

I do not think the auto landings will be every day initially either particularly as apparently the JPALS for the manned aircraft onboard will not be as accurate as envisaged until in final form with incremental upgrades. X-47B uses JPALS in a special way for the moment - when later all will be harmonised. I'm just really repeating what USN LSOs say in their newsletters. It will take some time - proof required and all that. There is even talk that the BEDFORD ARRAY may be used on CVNs at some point, if it works well for the Brits doing their SRVLs. Probably then the two OLSs will co-exist depending. Present IFLOLS will be required for the legacy aircraft anyway. There is a lot of carrier landing innovation in the near future.

A lot of good info has been posted in various threads about JPALS - here is some of it:

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=20468&p=256806&hilit=newsletter#p256806
&
viewtopic.php?f=60&t=20377&p=238671&hilit=newsletter#p238671

PLUS new carrier landing software which I presume will be used in Super Hornets and F-35Cs:
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=20468&p=251985&hilit=newsletter#p251985 (scroll)

PLUS Beford Array links and other stuff:
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20505&p=233737&hilit=newsletter#p233737

Unfortunately the USN LSO Newsletter is now only 4 per year rather than previous 12 while content was light in the last two so perhaps they are more circumspect these days about the new stuff:
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=13450&p=198140&hilit=newsletter#p198140

[cantaz]

They want a longer range missile than the AIM-120(D?) - stated this is a limiting factor for whole US Fleet.

Can't help but wonder if Gigliotti was implicitly plugging LM's CUDA-ER.

[popcorn]

They want a longer range missile than the AIM-120(D?) - stated this is a limiting factor for whole US Fleet.

Can't help but wonder if Gigliotti was implicitly plugging LM's CUDA-ER.

Has an ER Version been talked about? I assune this would be a longer missile, negating tandem mounting qnd cutting total payload by half.

[basher54321]

There is even talk that the BEDFORD ARRAY may be used on CVNs at some point, if it works well for the Brits doing their SRVLs. Probably then the two OLSs will co-exist depending. Present IFLOLS will be required for the legacy aircraft anyway. There is a lot of carrier landing innovation in the near future.

Thanks for the info - especially the Bedford Array will be interesting to see how that works out.

[XanderCrews]

They want a longer range missile than the AIM-120(D?) - stated this is a limiting factor for whole US Fleet.

Can't help but wonder if Gigliotti was implicitly plugging LM's CUDA-ER.

Same page on that one. Felt like he was throwing the hat in the ring.

[XanderCrews]

I did get a kick out of Gigliotti's story about which to trust more, the VLS or the ejection seat?! Its kind of sad though. Interesting anecdotes and other really cool history making stuff that should go reported doesn't. I'm not talking about cheerleading, just some objectiveness and some journalists that actually have an interest in the nuts and bolts of aviation that might pass on stories like that. What happened to the airplane nerds? Why did we have to hear that from a test pilot? when did we trade in our aviation journos who liked to write stories about airplanes for politicians with agendas?

Depressing to think about all that has gone unreported and may be lost because it might actually be construed as interesting, and interesting things are positive things --can't have that. Bring on the stories about exploding concrete that might happen, skip the part about a 15 ton aircraft taking off vertically that did happen-- Thats not what aviation is about. Stuff like that happens all the time and is hardly worth writing about...

Its sad. The F-35Bs vertical takeoff was an incredible moment in aviation and all we got was questions about its tactical utility. (BTW the answer is "Falklands")

[spazsinbad]

Totally agree with the 'boring aviation writing these days' sentiments above. It would be great to have not just the boring forensic accounting ad nauseam stuff. There is a balance out there waiting to be written. Perhaps Majumdar is that one.

[XanderCrews]

Totally agree with the 'boring aviation writing these days' sentiments above. It would be great to have not just the boring forensic accounting ad nauseam stuff. There is a balance out there waiting to be written. Perhaps Majumdar is that one.

I put the entire hour long Q and A in the background while i did chores around the house. I learned more details from these pilots just sharing basic anecdotes than all the aviation week stories written in the last 4 years. Why is that? Its time to drain the swamp. Its time to get some young bucks that will report honestly but with some enthusiasm about technology. For some reason aviation writers have forgotten to write about the airplane and the people who fly and service it, and instead has decided to play accountant with the program instead. Can't that be left to other publications?

I still stop and gawk whenever I see an Osprey fly by. Its an incredible piece of technology and aeronautics. I always think "wow, that's the future"

Also in case you wanted some more confirmation about Avaition Weeks agenda here is a "round up" of the "best comments" about the JSF from January-- see if you spot a theme:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 4239bcf28e

Its a fine job of trying to create a "sense of consensus"

sorry for the OT, just kind of amazed by it all

[mixelflick]

In order to extend the F-35C’s range, the Navy hopes to refuel the stealthy new fighter...

Why does the Navy insist on this? I realize launching with a heavier bomb load is one reason. Are there others??