F-35B for USN???

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

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1335
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 18:24

Simulation is so good these days that most folks here have probably been pax on an airline revenue flight without knowing the landing was the pilot's first landing in the actual aircraft. Probably didn't notice anything out of the ordinary....except in those very, very rare cases where the masks dropped or some minor dental work was required....but heck even the experienced captains occasionally 'plant' one.

The last USAF aircraft that was 'planted' like the Navy equivalent machine was probably the F-4, until cooler heads capped off the TE Boundary Layer Control and sanity prevailed. :mrgreen:
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6033
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 18:33

madrat wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Yeah, there is no reason for the USN to acquire the F-35B........ :roll:

But you could justify A models for training to save money for more operational C models


I would just send my pilots to F-35A schools rather than buy my own. Rule number whatever of military budgets; Don't buy what someone else can provide.

Especially if I'm going to wreck these F-35A's into the "deck" of a runway :mrgreen: :mrgreen: "your jets busted again airman!"
steve2267 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
madrat wrote:
They can simulate deck landing at a base with the A giving you plenty of similarity on characteristics of flight on approach.


really? how?


Xander Xander Xander... really... I am quite surprised at you. Isn't it obvious? You re-fit the A model with larger Fowler flaps that will increase the wing surface area by 45%. The 668 ft^2 wing area of this trainer Aye Aye model will perfectly duplicate the approach speed and handling conditions of the Sea model.

I'm quite sure the experts at NavAir have already proposed just this solution to Lockheed Martin... but those darned engineers just won't budge.

I mean, we all know it's just foolhardy to expect these young whippersnappers today, raised on computers and all, to learn to fly the aircraft almost totally in a simulator before stepping to the aircraft. I even heard the Israeli's are creating their own two seat model for just these exact problems...


Image
Choose Crews
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3338
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 19:17

Corsair1963 wrote:Yeah, there is no reason for the USN to acquire the F-35B........ :roll:

There's nothing in that article, that suggested the USN buying F-35Bs would be a better course of action, than buying more F-35Cs. No MEU is going to do without aircraft availability, due to other squadrons conducting joint operations with the Royal Navy. Even if both British carriers were deployed with USMC jets, that's 2 squadrons out of 340 F-35Bs they're buying.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2751
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 19:28

outlaw162 wrote:Simulation is so good these days that most folks here have probably been pax on an airline revenue flight without knowing the landing was the pilot's first landing in the actual aircraft. Probably didn't notice anything out of the ordinary....except in those very, very rare cases where the masks dropped or some minor dental work was required....but heck even the experienced captains occasionally 'plant' one.

The last USAF aircraft that was 'planted' like the Navy equivalent machine was probably the F-4, until cooler heads capped off the TE Boundary Layer Control and sanity prevailed. :mrgreen:


x2 on the sim thing.

Ref the ‘planting’ of aircraft, seems all those occasions coincide w flights I’ve had to DCA... :wink:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23551
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 19:53

I think I recall 'gums' sayin' he would seldom 'slightly flare' the A-7 and just PLANT IT (& water it in mightily for good use)?
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1335
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 20:27

Ref the ‘planting’ of aircraft, seems all those occasions coincide w flights I’ve had to DCA... :wink:


Yep, the shorter the runway, particularly with a close-in turn off the river, the more likelihood of a 'firm' touch.
Greenbriar, WV short and with the cliffs, and Santa Maria, CA were particularly hard on 727s....and spines.

I personally flared the A-7 just like a real airplane when conditions allowed, but it would accommodate a 'plant' if necessary. To each his own. :D

From my experience, avoiding landing stress put on the mechanical inertials and ranging radars in standby seemed to result in tail numbers with consistently better bombing scores, there were differences, but that may fall into the category of urban myth, or outlaw myth.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2351
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 20:43

quicksilver wrote:You cannot fly A model F-35s to carrier touch and gos. The jet is not designed to absorb those kinds of structural loads.

XanderCrews wrote:
madrat wrote:
They can simulate deck landing at a base with the A giving you plenty of similarity on characteristics of flight on approach.


really? how?

Luckily land based runways do not pitch and buck.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2751
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 21:00

madrat wrote:
quicksilver wrote:You cannot fly A model F-35s to carrier touch and gos. The jet is not designed to absorb those kinds of structural loads.

XanderCrews wrote:
madrat wrote:
They can simulate deck landing at a base with the A giving you plenty of similarity on characteristics of flight on approach.


really? how?

Luckily land based runways do not pitch and buck.


It’s not about the ‘pitching and bucking’ of the landing surface. That’s why the C model is 5000# heavier than the A. Wanna land on ships (or practice for same ashore)? Ya gotta beef it (the design of the jet) up and ya gotta slow it down.

Don’t believe us? Do a little research. Start with ‘F-35 Carrier Suitability’ and maybe ‘F-35C Structural Survey‘. There’s also some video around on F-35C drop tests — notably, a test that the A and B models did not undergo. Here ya go — https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iNnSrg7Npzg
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2751
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 21:28

spazsinbad wrote:At NAS Nowra when the Kiwis invaded with No.2 Squadron RNZAF A-4K Kahus for initial pilot training and Fleet Defence work, the aircraft were powered up again just before touchdown instead of a touch and go to save wear & tear on tyres.

Personally I don't like the idea of an F-35A simulating an F-35C because I think it would give the incorrect muscle memory.

The Kiwis used to flare slightly before touch down also to save wear and tear but not always I'm told. The Skyhawk was designed for NO FLARE landings & it was only for EMERGENCIES when high landing speeds were required that it was flared.

However the A-4K Kahu retained the AoA indexer and of course it now had a wide HUD with such symbology to squizz at. Not being familiar with the new setup caused a TA-4K Kahu to land short at OHAKEA to then drop tank arrest on foam.


I would only add (as you, spaz know from years of experience) that the business of ‘flying the ball all the way to touchdown’ is foundational to carrier recoveries. Flying an F-35A to an IC.AR waveoff would be a complete non-starter for training.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23551
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 22:45

Agree 'QS' - I could have laboured my point so I'll do it now with the USAF A-7D Flight Manual c.1972 Landing Advice pages.
A-7D USAF Series Aircraft
20 Sep 1972 change USAF

Landing
“Set up a power-on rate of descent with the angle-of-attack indexer donut illuminated and aim for a touchdown point 500 to 700 feet beyond the runway threshold. Cross-check angle of attack and airspeed. If final approach drops below computed and the sink rate becomes excessive, correct first by adding power and then adjusting attitude. Hold the donut to touchdown.

If wheel braking without the antiskid system is anticipated and control augmentation is not required for aircraft control, the CONT AUG switch should be placed in OFF before touchdown to remove lateral control stick inputs from the AFCS. Without control augmentation, it is easier to maintain equal weight distribution on the main gear and reduce the possibility of blown tires.

On touchdown with higher sink rates, the aircraft has a tendency to rock forward and, unless a small amount of back stick pressure is held, the nose gear contacts the runway. If the aircraft bounces, reestablish the proper landing attitude and adjust sink rate with throttle. If aircraft control becomes questionable, do not hesitate to execute a go-around...”

Source: https://www.filefactory.com/file/1slhgt ... Manual.pdf (61.5Mb)
Attachments
Landing Advice AoA & HUD CORSAIR II LTV A-7D Flight Manual OCR PRN pp4.pdf
(845.79 KiB) Downloaded 19 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2351
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 23:20

Sure, quicksilver, because learning instrumentation navigation and landing requires a crashworthy touchdown... sorry, I don't buy that you cannot progress through a syllabus without that extra heavy structure. Carrier flight is advanced training and it takes a lot more than a few flights to get there. It makes sense to learn a large spectrum of operation goals before taking the big leap to carrier qualifications.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2751
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 23:34

madrat wrote:Sure, quicksilver, because learning instrumentation navigation and landing requires a crashworthy touchdown... sorry, I don't buy that you cannot progress through a syllabus without that extra heavy structure. Carrier flight is advanced training and it takes a lot more than a few flights to get there. It makes sense to learn a large spectrum of operation goals before taking the big leap to carrier qualifications.


Several of us have said that sims are a good way to go. However, YOU argued this, and I quote —

“They can simulate deck landing at a base with the A giving you plenty of similarity on characteristics of flight on approach...Nor should you need fully sea-hardened models for lead up to carrier trials.“

Nice try.

“Carrier flight is advanced training and it takes a lot more than a few flights to get there. It makes sense to learn a large spectrum of operation goals before taking the big leap to carrier qualifications.”

I agree; been there, done that. That’s why Navy guys should be flying the Navy jet every time they fly.
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1335
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post23 Oct 2019, 00:12

......................
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5868
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post23 Oct 2019, 02:09

wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Yeah, there is no reason for the USN to acquire the F-35B........ :roll:

There's nothing in that article, that suggested the USN buying F-35Bs would be a better course of action, than buying more F-35Cs. No MEU is going to do without aircraft availability, due to other squadrons conducting joint operations with the Royal Navy. Even if both British carriers were deployed with USMC jets, that's 2 squadrons out of 340 F-35Bs they're buying.



HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF??? "I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED OR EVEN IMPLIED THE USN SHOULD REPLACE F-35C'S WITH F-35B'S.......

:roll: :roll: :roll:

In addition the USMC doesn't have an "infinite" number of F-35B's. Yet, has more and more commitments by the day...from the USN in the new role as Mini Aircraft Carriers. To Japanese and British Aircraft Carriers. (i.e. Izumo and Queen Elizabeth Classes) So, please tell us MEU's will always have enough aircraft availability???
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2751
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post23 Oct 2019, 03:47

“Yet, has more and more commitments by the day...“

Really? Name them for us.

‘New role’ as mini carrier? Not a new idea nor commitment — see previous posts re: ROOSEVELT, NASSAU, BATAAN, BHR And others.

Japan? Help us with the details on that.

MEUs? That’s a 6-jet commitment; that leaves 10 jets at home...available for deployment on a different ship, like maybe...QE. Imagine that... :salute:
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests