F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Johnathan gets a bit carried away... OR is this breaking news?

Inside the F-35, the world's most futuristic fighter jet By Jonathan Glancey 16 Jan 2013

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... r-jet.html

"An aviation fantasy from the realms of Star Wars, the F-35 is the most sophisticated, expensive and controversial jet fighter ever produced. Jonathan Glancey takes its flight simulator for a spin...

"...It seems all so simple, so certain and seductive. Who wouldn’t want this all-but-invisible, all-but-invincible sky warrior on their side? There is no other military aircraft like it in the pipeline, much less in production; Russian and Chinese 'rivals’ are still essentially fourth generation. So why is the F-35 controversial? Why is Canada threatening to cancel its order? Why have there been so many spats between the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin?

Because the F-35 programme is at least five years behind schedule. Because costs have risen by more than 90 per cent. Because design, development and testing have thrown up many problems that insiders view as teething problems – the helmet needs further work; early tailhooks failed to catch the wire when planes landed on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Wasp; computer software is not all it should be, or not yet – and outsiders are determined to see as fundamental flaws...."

A lot of similar at the jump however there are the usual good pilot quotes about how easy the F-35B is to STOVL Hover and such.

'count_to_10' asked: "If things really go wrong, would they not be able to rig the deck for a barrier arrestment?"

In the early days of NavAv I guess 'sandbagging' had a different meaning. I have been pondering that a simple barrier could be a possibility on a CVF if an F-35B has a rear nozzle fueldraulic actuator failure or similar for a shipboard recovery. Many tests would have to be carried out with the barrier ashore to ensure that it would not kill the pilot and also minimise damage to F-35B; otherwise not much point to it. The Chinese Navy PLAN to test their barricade on LIAONING with a real aircraft. This seems incredible and perhaps a 'lost in translation' effect. Much easier to test ashore with test facilities found at Lakehurst for such matters.

However if a conventional approach is needed to a barricade arrest then the approach KIAS will likely be very high (guessing 150+) similar to F-35A approach speed unless other devices still working on the BEE can mitigate the approach speed. I guess it all depends....

Pic needs clarification - date is 18 Jan 1911. 'You've come a long way Baby!'

Operationally the F-35B runs lighter so that should bring down the landing speed. If the exhaust doesn't hinge then you would hope the clutch still drives the lift fan, which the Alpha won't have. A bad clutch would probably be the bigger single point of failure next to an engine loss of course.

Can the B variant carry a JSOW internally/externally?

How about you ask that question on another thread please. Ask youself. What has this thread got to do with your question? Thanks. If you are puzzled where that thread or threads may be then use the 'search' function using the term "JSOW" or similar. There are recent threads about this exact question.

Thanks 'mcraptor'. NEW THREAD started about this question here:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-22029.html

Fine. I'll create a new thread for it.

Is the UK still getting the B and not the C?

Yes, they are getting the B.

I'd have gone for the 'C' but ho-hum, I'm sure that with 280m long carriers they need the STOVL ability more than the extra range, internal weapons carriage and wing area.

'mcraptor' you must be 'RipVanWinkle'? There is a long running thread about the 'muddling' UK twists and turns to ultimately decide on the F-35B as originally envisaged from an interim trip to the boonies, with a temporary run down a blind alley, with an emphemeral decision to change to the F-35C. I'm not going to regurgitate the facts but you can investigate for yourself here:

UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-15969.html

Probably working backwards from the last page will get to the rationale for choosing the F-35B again - despite your sad misgivings.

Cheers.

Insight into hover / VLBB ability of the BEE...

F-35 JSF Testers Report Progress, Problems By Guy Norris, Graham Warwick — With Amy Butler and Bill Sweetman in Washington. Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology 21 Jan 2013

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 03.xml&p=3

"...Recent test highlights include hovering the F-35B for 10 min. “It was record, hovering at max performance with more than 5,000 pounds of fuel before doing a vertical landing,” he says...."

An RVL to near runway (then video stops because the demonstrator goes into an auto hover) video clip in F-35B mode in the simulator - low quality to fit.

REMEMBER - Select START then once the video starts to play right click on it to select ZOOM > Full Screen

Another explanation about what youse see in the fillum above... From the great John Farley (and all credit to Mike Scaff in dat movie).

Excerpt from: THE RAF HARRIER STORY ROYAL AIR FORCE HISTORICAL SOCIETY

A V/STOL FLIGHT CONTROL JOURNEY ENABLED BY RAE SCIENTISTS by John Farley

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk.nyud.net/do ... -Story.pdf (25.5Mb)

"...To continue with the main story. In 1983 I turned into a pumpkin and retired from Harrier test flying but the VAAC team were kind enough to keep in touch with me and I was invited back in 1993 and again in 1999 to fly the aircraft and comment on how I thought they were getting on.

In 1999 my safety pilot was one Sqn Ldr Justin Paines. When I got out after our couple of sorties at Boscombe, I told him that I thought the team had cracked it and that Unified was the way ahead.

Shortly after that, following a detailed and quantitative evaluation trial where the VAAC was flown by many test pilots including several from the USA (some of whom had never been in a Harrier before) the VAAC team was able to convince the US Joint Strike Fighter Programme Office that Unified should form the basis of the JSF flight control system.

Again there was much more to selling Unified to the US than my account might suggest. Justin Paines, who led the final test pilot push, was in no doubt that the opinion of Harrier squadron pilots, on both sides of the Atlantic, was bitterly divided. While some saw the attraction of Unified others were seriously opposed to it. The opposition even included senior BAE SYSTEMS test pilots. As I saw it the opponents all had many years of successfully using the nozzle lever and arguably it was that skill that made them feel better pilots than those who had no such experience. It made them better in the circuit, better in the bar, and probably better in bed. As for the mistakes some other Harrier pilots had made over the years it was only lesser mortals, not people like them, who moved the wrong lever. Expecting such successful senior operators to vote for abolishing the nozzle lever was akin to expecting turkeys to vote for Christmas.

In the end I am glad to say that the VAAC team’s arguments in favour of deskilling the process of flying jet V/STOL won the day, thus saving costly training as well as reducing the likelihood of accidents. The JSF will be in service for fifty years from now so many of its future pilots have yet to be conceived. Thankfully the aircraft is to be built with them in mind – not yesterday’s nozzle lever men.

Finally what about my wish for a ‘coffee bar button’? In many of the conversations I had with Harrier pilots about the controversial idea of Unified, I was at pains to point out that, although I wanted to get rid of their beloved nozzle lever, I was not a boffin’s nark and against the operational pilot’s point of view. In fact quite the reverse. I believed that while operational pilots were over the target (and being shot at on our behalf) their views about what they needed to do their job were paramount. However, once they turned their back on the target and their operational job was done, they should be able to press a ‘coffee bar button’ whereupon the aeroplane would then take them home safely, day or night, in any weather, regardless of whether they were exhausted, injured or (heaven forbid) it was just their day to make a mistake during their approach to land."
&
ANNEX – CONTROL LAW RESEARCH USING THE VAAC HARRIER
Two decades ago the controversial aspects of the Unified law were well appreciated by the VAAC team. This led them to thoroughly flight test various other concepts. By 1999 they were left with three serious contenders: Unified, Mode Change and Fusion.

UNIFIED. Unified was the most radical mode. Here the pilot pulls back on the stick to go up and pushes to go down, regardless of airspeed. At all speeds above 40 kt ground speed the stick commands flight path rate and so relaxing it to the centre position when the aircraft is flying level maintains height. If the aircraft is in a climb or a dive, relaxing the stick maintains the existing climb or dive flight path angle. As the aircraft decelerates through 40 kt the stick response blends to become a height rate control by 30 kt ground speed so, in the hover, with stick centre commanding zero height rate, it appears to the pilot as a height hold.

When flying up and away lateral stick commands roll rate. This blends between 130 and 100 kt to become a closed loop roll attitude control, so that relaxing the stick to centre below 100 kt commands wings level. Above 40 kt ground speed the rudder pedals command sideslip. Decelerating below this speed the pedals blend to a yaw rate command by 30 kt, providing a heading hold in the hover with feet central.

A throttle-type left hand inceptor, incorporating two detents, commands longitudinal acceleration.

Putting the inceptor in the centre detent holds the current speed. Acceleration or deceleration is selected by moving the lever forward or aft of the detent, with full travel demanding maximum available performance. Decelerating through 35 kt ground speed starts a blend and below 25 kt the aft detent commands zero ground speed. Either side of the aft detent gives the pilot a closed loop control of ground speed up to 30 kt forwards or backwards.

In summary, if the pilot centres both the stick and throttle when flying on the wings, the aircraft holds the existing speed, bank attitude and climb or dive angle. In the hover, centralising everything maintains the existing hover height, position and heading. Such hover characteristics are the stuff of dreams for every Harrier pilot..."

More about the other modes in the PDF excerpt indicated above now attached. RAF Harrier History is in the main LARGE PDF.

spazsinbad wrote:'count_to_10' asked: "If things really go wrong, would they not be able to rig the deck for a barrier arrestment?"

In the early days of NavAv I guess 'sandbagging' had a different meaning. I have been pondering that a simple barrier could be a possibility on a CVF if an F-35B has a rear nozzle fueldraulic actuator failure or similar for a shipboard recovery. Many tests would have to be carried out with the barrier ashore to ensure that it would not kill the pilot and also minimise damage to F-35B; otherwise not much point to it. The Chinese Navy PLAN to test their barricade on LIAONING with a real aircraft. This seems incredible and perhaps a 'lost in translation' effect. Much easier to test ashore with test facilities found at Lakehurst for such matters.

However if a conventional approach is needed to a barricade arrest then the approach KIAS will likely be very high (guessing 150+) similar to F-35A approach speed unless other devices still working on the BEE can mitigate the approach speed. I guess it all depends....

Pic needs clarification - date is 18 Jan 1911. 'You've come a long way Baby!'

All this talk about crash barriers..,suddenly this image pops into mind of the early days before angled decks from "The Bridge at Toko-ri".. if the net didn't stop the jet, it would crash into a tractor/crane to protect other aircraft on the deck.. now THAT'S a barrier!