F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

Production milestones, roll-outs, test flights, service introduction and other milestones.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2650
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post27 Aug 2018, 10:39

Corsair1963 wrote:Then you won't have a problem providing countless sources then.......... :wink:


LOL. You think they announce/document that kind of thing?? In our previous lives some of us around here have actually worked in the building and seen it first-hand. We’ve talked about it a number of times before. I’m sure you can find it w advanced search.

Very simply, in the initial broad-brush requirements work the Navy wanted more range, internal payload and two engines. OSD forced them to compromise. The institutional aversion to that compromise has been strong, particularly as the CVW has become homogenized with the BA product line.

The threat of the only ‘5th Gen’ fighters in the DoN having MARINES painted on the side has been a significant motivator of behaviors also.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5400
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post27 Aug 2018, 15:05

quicksilver wrote:
sferrin wrote:
quicksilver wrote:I agree. More broadly, the Navy has made numerous bureaucratic attempts to extract themselves from F-35 dating from the days of JAST. But, I think this article is a exercise in shaping that probably accompanies a storyline being used in and around the Beltway to justify separate NGAD/F/A-XX funding lines.

"Don't make us do another one of these (i.e. a Joint program) again..."


Are they currently trying to ditch the F-35C? Considering the last non-joint aircraft they got was the Tomcat, I'd be careful about looking a gift-horse in the mouth were I the USN.


As I stated, the article is about NGAD/FA-XX, not F-35C.


spazsinbad wrote:'sferrin' asked: "Are they currently trying to ditch the F-35C?..." Where do you get that idea? There is skads of evidence that the USN requires the F-35C just not as quickly as some here would like - that is all on other threads. SHIRLEY this thread and others complimentary about the F-35C by the USN and test pilots gives you the impression the USN is keen?


"More broadly, the Navy has made numerous bureaucratic attempts to extract themselves from F-35 dating from the days of JAST."

That's why I asked the question. Also they don't seem to be in much of a hurry to buy some.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23280
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Aug 2018, 20:39

"...Also they don't seem to be in much of a hurry to buy some." Another thread has some good explanations from others about 'why this is so'. For example on the now very long thread: Commander Naval Air Forces wants more F/A-18s

'usnvo' post is one example and there are many more: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=52254&p=393492&hilit=commence#p393492

Explanations beforehand then this: "...Now consider the impact of buying more F-18s. They arrive from the factory in a year or so and are immediately put to use enhancing the readiness of the force. No pilots to train, no maintainers to train, no schools to stand up, no impact on the fleet squadrons except less maintenance and higher readiness. It is like mana from heaven. That is not to say that the F-18 bubbas aren't the ones who caused the problem in the first place but that is why there is resistance to transitioning more squadrons to F-35C and the desire to get new F-18s."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5697
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post28 Aug 2018, 06:16

Actually, the F-35C buy is going exactly to schedule. As production is ramping up to 20+ per year over the next couple of years. This will allow the USN to replace two Squadrons per CVW per Year. Then by time that happens the Super Hornets currently undergoing SLEP will start to retire...



So, what's the issue??? :roll:
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2650
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post28 Aug 2018, 12:07

Corsair1963 wrote:Actually, the F-35C buy is going exactly to schedule. As production is ramping up to 20+ per year over the next couple of years. This will allow the USN to replace two Squadrons per CVW per Year. Then by time that happens the Super Hornets currently undergoing SLEP will start to retire...



So, what's the issue??? :roll:


"Actually, the F-35C buy is going exactly to schedule."

Exactly which schedule would that be? The Navy has moved F-35Cs to the right almost every year for the last 10 years (I havent seen the most recent outlook).
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5400
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post28 Aug 2018, 13:43

"There I was. . ."
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4481
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post28 Aug 2018, 15:20

Top Gun 2 filming right there
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2650
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post28 Aug 2018, 20:44

sferrin wrote:
quicksilver wrote:I agree. More broadly, the Navy has made numerous bureaucratic attempts to extract themselves from F-35 dating from the days of JAST. But, I think this article is a exercise in shaping that probably accompanies a storyline being used in and around the Beltway to justify separate NGAD/F/A-XX funding lines.

"Don't make us do another one of these (i.e. a Joint program) again..."


Are they currently trying to ditch the F-35C? Considering the last non-joint aircraft they got was the Tomcat, I'd be careful about looking a gift-horse in the mouth were I the USN.


Not sure how SH would qualify as a "joint" development...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23280
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Aug 2018, 01:50

Did not know about this crash - I'll search for more info: YES I DID BUT FORGOT:

2017 post: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=371082&hilit=Wangeman#p371082
GRUMMAN MEMORIAL PARK TO GET A MONUMENT IN MEMORY OF TWO GRUMMAN TEST PILOTS THAT [who] DIED IN F-111B CRASH
07 Jul 2017 Dario Leone

"The Grumman Memorial Park will be getting a monument to mark the crash of a F-111B in 1967 that killed two
Grumman test pilots
….

...the new monument would honor pilots Charles “Buck” Wangeman and Ralph “Dixie” Donnell, who were killed on Apr. 21, 1967, while testing a General Dynamics/Grumman F-111B fighter jet at the Calverton facility.

A mislabeled switch led to the engine being choked off and when the pilots pulled the ejection handle, it broke off, according to the Naval Aviation Safety Center’s investigation of the crash...."

Source: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/grumman ... 11b-crash/
Last edited by spazsinbad on 29 Aug 2018, 02:30, 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

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5982
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post29 Aug 2018, 02:19

Corsair1963 wrote:Then you won't have a problem providing countless sources then.......... :wink:



One of the things I've run into online is that I do often like people "in the biz" have first hand or "insider" info on some things and see it dismissed out of hand since I can't "prove" it. Now obviously we should not believe everything we read on the internet but if a poster seems to be credible then maybe they should be given the benefit of the doubt. What's the point of any of this if we are going to take every article as the gospel, while dismissing someone who actually has the "real story"?? Why bother with discussion forums at all? Just listen to CNN and get the hillary crown ready.


It's been intensely frustrating on several message boards to share something I actually have first hand knowledge about, Called every name in the book and dismissed as a liar, only to watch articles start dropping saying exactly what I said soon after. As if I knew what I was talking about the whole time.

I hate the navy too BTW. Just feel that was an important thing to add to the above.

The navy needs the F-35 but they dont WANT the F-35. The navy has made itself a problem child with it from the start.


And I will go to my grave saying this: the F-35C NOT the F-35B is the least common, most pain in the A$$ version. STOVL gets the hardest time but its not the "weirdo" in this program
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23280
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Aug 2018, 02:33

Memorial would commemorate two Grumman pilots killed in ’67 crash
21 Nov 2016 by Paul Squire

"...According to a Naval Aviation Safety Center investigation, what happened next could easily have been prevented. Engineers had toyed with the experimental craft’s airflow system, which fed oxygen into the jet engines. Unbeknownst to the pilots, a switch that should have opened the airflow cowls had been mislabeled with scotch tape and advisory lights in the cockpit were switched off as the cowls closed, according to the accident report.

About eight seconds after the landing gear on the F111-B jet retracted, the cowls shut completely, choking off the engine. The afterburners blew out and the two-seater aircraft pitched up. The two Grumman pilots yanked the ejection handle that should have jettisoned them to safety. Instead, it snapped off, according to the accident report.

The fighter jet slammed down into the ground beyond the runway, bursting into flames. Mr. Donnell and Mr. Wangeman were both killed...."

Photo: "The F111-B experimental fighter jet flies over Long Island in the 1960s. This aircraft would crash off the runway in Calverton in 1967, killing test pilots Ralph ‘Dixie’ Donnell and Charles ‘Buck’ Wangeman. (Credit: San Diego Air & Space Museum)" http://media.timesreview.com.s3.amazona ... man2_C.jpg


Source: http://suffolktimes.timesreview.com/201 ... -67-crash/

“...Tim Lent reports that his father, a former Grumman Aerospace Corporation employee who worked at the Grumman plant in Calverton, Long Island, NY, was a witness to the loss of this aircraft on 21 April 1967. Tim says that the aircraft actually crashed moments after lifting off from runway 14 at Grumman Calverton after experiencing a dual engine flameout. The cause was traced to the translating cowl switch being in the wrong position. As soon as the aircraft went into a "weight off wheels" condition, the cowls, which normally would be full open, closed, resulting in a dual compressor stall. The aircraft impacted to the left of runway centerline, in the grass, at about the 6000ft marker after plummeting approx. 200 ft. Both crew members were killed instantly. "Buck" Wangman was piloting, with Ralph Donnell as co-pilot.

Mr Bruce C Donnell, the son of Mr Ralph Donnell also has independently verified this info. He adds that both ejection handles had also failed, trapping the crew in the jet. Killed were Mr Ralph H. Donnell and Mr Charles E. Wangeman. Callsign Grumman 67. (Doc Servo)…

... The aircraft had recorded 53 sorties and 89.1 hours when it was lost. (Source: F-111 Aardvark by Don Logan)” http://www.f-111.net/t_no_B.htm
Attachments
F-111Bcrash1967airframe.jpg
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: 23280
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Aug 2018, 14:15

Some more vids of the recent F-35C testin' at sea - second one seen before but hey, whatever. BOTH CATS bah humbug.

F-35C Conducts First-Ever Operational Test At Sea 28 Aug 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4EYTCTAQ_M

First Time F-35C Conducts Missions With Other Aircraft 28 Aug 2018 [both from WEAK as AV]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUul7fj2Q1s



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

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5400
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post29 Aug 2018, 14:59

quicksilver wrote:
sferrin wrote:
quicksilver wrote:I agree. More broadly, the Navy has made numerous bureaucratic attempts to extract themselves from F-35 dating from the days of JAST. But, I think this article is a exercise in shaping that probably accompanies a storyline being used in and around the Beltway to justify separate NGAD/F/A-XX funding lines.

"Don't make us do another one of these (i.e. a Joint program) again..."


Are they currently trying to ditch the F-35C? Considering the last non-joint aircraft they got was the Tomcat, I'd be careful about looking a gift-horse in the mouth were I the USN.


Not sure how SH would qualify as a "joint" development...


SH is an outgrowth of the Legacy Hornet which itself was derived from the USAF YF-17. If there had been no YF-17 there would be no Super Hornet.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2650
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post30 Aug 2018, 03:15

:lmao:

But an A+ for creativity...
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5400
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post30 Aug 2018, 04:00

quicksilver wrote::lmao:

But an A+ for creativity...


Explain how the Super Hornet would have come about had the YF-17 never appeared. (This should be good.)
"There I was. . ."
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 milestones

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests