Navy Prepares F-35C for Carrier Landing

Variants for different customers or mission profiles
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post13 Jun 2014, 22:29

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/06/13/navy- ... r-landing/

Navy Prepares F-35C for Carrier Landing

By Kris Osborn Friday, June 13th, 2014 4:48 pm

Navy test pilots are conducting numerous shore-based test landings of the F-35C of the next-generation Joint Strike Fighter in anticipation of its first at-sea landing on an aircraft carrier later this year, service officials said. The shore landings, taking place at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., are designed to replicate the range of conditions which the F-35C is likely to encounter at sea – to the extent that is possible. Test pilots are working on what they call a structural survey, an effort to assess the F-35C’s ability to land in a wide range of scenarios such as nose down, tail down or max engaging speed, said ..a Navy test pilot.

..“The whole purpose is to make sure the landing gear and the aircraft structure are all suitable to take the stresses that the pilot could see while trying to land aboard the deck of an aircraft carrier,” Burks explained. ..“We’ve done about 90 carrier-style landings,”.. ..The F-35C is engineered to be larger than the Air Force’s F-35 A or Marine Corps short-take-off-and-landing F-35B because the structure of the aircraft needs to be able to withstand the impact of landing on a carrier. Also, the F-35C has larger, foldable wings to facilitate slower approach speeds compatible with moving ships, ..

“In order to withstand the forces experienced during an arrested landing, the keel of an F-35C is strengthened and the landing gear is of a heavier-duty build than the A and B models,” an official with the F-35 Integrated Test Force said.
The wings of the F-35 C are also built with what’s called “aileron control surfaces” designed to prevent the aircraft from rolling.

..The aircraft also needs to be able to withstand what’s called a “free flight,” a situation where the pilot receives a late wave off to keep flying after the hook on the airplane has already connected with the wire,.. “We need to be sure that the engine and the aircraft itself can handle the stress of essentially being ripped out of the air by the interaction between the cable and the hook,” ..

little more at the jump :)
Offline

arcturus

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post13 Jun 2014, 22:47

In the comments section of the article I see Black0wl18E has tossed in his thoughts. He might be one of my favorite trolls. Sadly, he doesn't fight to the finish line.

This is going to be much like every other less than well thought out F-35 criticism. The C couldn't trap...until it could.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23333
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Jun 2014, 23:40

Thanks 'neppie'. I'm going to replicate the post in part on the other long running section if that is OK? I like this part (used to be called an 'inflight engagement' and not of the mile high variety.... :mrgreen:
".....The aircraft also needs to be able to withstand what’s called a “free flight,” a situation where the pilot receives a late wave off to keep flying after the hook on the airplane has already connected with the wire,.. “We need to be sure that the engine and the aircraft itself can handle the stress of essentially being ripped out of the air by the interaction between the cable and the hook,” .."

The Indians BROKE one of their MiGs the other day with one of these (again poorly described in my view) however I was not at either events to know otherwise. So I'll just guess... as usual. :devil:

The 'talkwench' comment at the URL above is the gist of the DonnieBaconie Conspiracy Theory about said F-35C hook. Don't say it won't catch on.... :drool:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6003
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post14 Jun 2014, 22:12

arcturus wrote:In the comments section of the article I see Black0wl18E has tossed in his thoughts. He might be one of my favorite trolls. Sadly, he doesn't fight to the finish line.

This is going to be much like every other less than well thought out F-35 criticism. The C couldn't trap...until it could.



Don't you hate it when you are making ignorant comments based on things you don't know about and then suddenly someone who actually knows what they are talking about (and who applies common sense "The navy wouldn't send it to a carrier if the hook wasn't working in testing"), starts posting official documents about the subject matter?

Boy, That must suck.

The funny things about governments, and the military, even industry, is they make all these "rules" and "laws" and "procedures" and "regulations" and then the SOBs have the nerve to actually write them down and adhere to them, thus making them "official". This makes it a lot tougher to talk out the sphincter and create "my word vs your word" arguments online. Which really makes life tough on the ignorant. Luckily the ignorant make up for this with lots of yelling, and a lack of shame about being proven wrong.
Choose Crews
Offline

arcturus

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post15 Jun 2014, 05:58

XanderCrews wrote:
arcturus wrote:In the comments section of the article I see Black0wl18E has tossed in his thoughts. He might be one of my favorite trolls. Sadly, he doesn't fight to the finish line.

This is going to be much like every other less than well thought out F-35 criticism. The C couldn't trap...until it could.



Don't you hate it when you are making ignorant comments based on things you don't know about and then suddenly someone who actually knows what they are talking about (and who applies common sense "The navy wouldn't send it to a carrier if the hook wasn't working in testing"), starts posting official documents about the subject matter?

Boy, That must suck.

The funny things about governments, and the military, even industry, is they make all these "rules" and "laws" and "procedures" and "regulations" and then the SOBs have the nerve to actually write them down and adhere to them, thus making them "official". This makes it a lot tougher to talk out the sphincter and create "my word vs your word" arguments online. Which really makes life tough on the ignorant. Luckily the ignorant make up for this with lots of yelling, and a lack of shame about being proven wrong.



The truly entertaining part of all of this is the fact the BlackOwl18E, when we first crossed paths, was a newly minted Ensign assigned to Pensacola for flight training.
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post15 Jun 2014, 06:51

Funny how this story seems to have garnered little attention. The big news on 13JUN14 for USNI and Dave was lack of money for a pointless make-work-order of 22 Growlers... never mind the F-35C being ready for ship trials. I suppose the first launches and traps will be preempted by something equally inconsequential, or perhaps a fluff-piece on UCLASS or F/A-XX. :roll:
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 929
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post15 Jun 2014, 13:46

lookieloo wrote:Funny how this story seems to have garnered little attention. The big news on 13JUN14 for USNI and Dave was lack of money for a pointless make-work-order of 22 Growlers... never mind the F-35C being ready for ship trials. I suppose the first launches and traps will be preempted by something equally inconsequential, or perhaps a fluff-piece on UCLASS or F/A-XX. :roll:


He wrote an article on this not too long ago

http://news.usni.org/2014/06/03/navy-jo ... -tests-sea
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5413
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post15 Jun 2014, 14:00

arcturus wrote:In the comments section of the article I see Black0wl18E has tossed in his thoughts. He might be one of my favorite trolls. Sadly, he doesn't fight to the finish line.

This is going to be much like every other less than well thought out F-35 criticism. The C couldn't trap...until it could.


BlackOwl is an idiot. He lives over on DoDBuzz.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6003
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post15 Jun 2014, 15:28

arcturus wrote:

The truly entertaining part of all of this is the fact the BlackOwl18E, when we first crossed paths, was a newly minted Ensign assigned to Pensacola for flight training.


How long ago was that?
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23333
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Jun 2014, 22:07

May I whine? With all due respect... :devil: Dave is interested in NavAv (according to his bio on USNI News) and he seems to be; so I'll expect more stories from his goodself about the F-35C hookylookylooky thingamejigs. Trouble is (the whine) now there are TWO threads about such matters; so anyway, if one wants to look at the long running thread about how the F-35C hook issues were noted - investigated and fixed (with not a conspiracy in sight) then go here to search back or forwards after a successful arrest. Bolters can use the browser back button to come back here for another try. :mrgreen:

F-35 milestones (for some odd reason) F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing thread:

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&start=480
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post15 Jun 2014, 23:16

Dave-style passive aggressiveness notwithstanding... here's something I missed back in FEB
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... px?ID=1415

Naval aviators plan to fly the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from an aircraft carrier at sea this fall. Pilots who have operated the aircraft say they are cautiously optimistic about its future despite a string of technical setbacks.

During carrier tests scheduled for October, officials will have an opportunity to examine the performance of the airplane following a recent redesign of the arresting hook that catches the airplane when it lands on the carrier deck. Aviation commanders also hope the tests will provide early answers to questions about the role of the F-35C as part of an air wing[...]
...on the gloomier side.
[...]Routine aircraft operations and maintenance aboard the carrier will change dramatically when the F-35C joins the fleet, says Burks. The high-tech materials that give the F-35 stealth properties require special care. “There will have to be a paradigm shift … in the grimy flight deck environment,” he says. “Maintainers are going to have to come into the 21st century when it comes to maintaining these technologies,” says Burks. “No longer can we allow our aircraft to get grubby and grimy from wear and tear, and wash them once a month. They will require daily support, the effort of the entire squadron, especially on cruise,” he says. “That's different from the current mindset when we let the airplanes get dirty because of the operational environment.” In test squadrons, aircraft are kept indoors and in hangars, so maintenance problems at sea have yet to be experienced.

Another issue will be coping with louder than usual engines. “It is a very noisy jet,” Burks says of the F-35C. “We are looking at having to use noise-cancellation headsets for maintainers” and other operators.

The Pentagon’s Director of Test and Evaluation Michael Gilmore says in his 2014 annual report that engine noise is a “potential risk to personnel on the flight deck and one level below the flight deck.” Projected noise levels one level below the flight deck will require at least single hearing protection, he says. On most carriers this is a berthing area, but on the new carrier CVN-78 this is a mission planning space, Gilmore says. “Personnel wearing hearing protection in mission planning areas will find it difficult to perform their duties.”[...]
...rest of the piece continues with the outdated hook whining of such irritation. As for the so-called maintenance and noise issues, I expect some of the sputtering we witnessed when no holes were melted in the deck during LHD trials. Yeah... integration of a new aircraft requires some adaptation of equipment and procedure... shocker. :roll:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23333
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Jun 2014, 23:19

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

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: blindpilot, madrat and 7 guests