F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 31 Oct 2013, 05:45

Amazing that you have either not read nor looked at the previous page(s). Do I have to do all that work all over again? I just listened to the TAILHOOK 13 audio on previous page and reread the excerpt from the PaxRiver Testers about what they do to test not only tailhook in good environment conditions but ALSO IN BAD. Now I do not know what exactly is being tested but it seems to me it is not just testing the hook works in ideal conditions on a runway. You are entitled to your FUD but I think it is unfounded until more is known. So be it.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 31 Oct 2013, 05:50

Maybe these ARMY guys are fed up with all the 'hooky' stuff?

Army Considers Ending Joint Basing 30 Oct 2013 Brendan McGarry

http://images.military.com/media/news/b ... -ts300.jpg

lookieloo · by **lookieloo** » 31 Oct 2013, 06:17

spazsinbad wrote:Amazing that you have either not read nor looked at the previous page(s). Do I have to do all that work all over again? I just listened to the TAILHOOK 13 audio on previous page and reread the excerpt from the PaxRiver Testers about what they do to test not only tailhook in good environment conditions but ALSO IN BAD. Now I do not know what exactly is being tested but it seems to me it is not just testing the hook works in ideal conditions on a runway. You are entitled to your FUD but I think it is unfounded until more is known. So be it.

I'm fully aware of how the USN screwed up the wire data it sent to contractors. I've already read how LM and the USN intend to solve the problem. My issue is with the fact that it's been months since said testing took place... and still no news on whether the fixes actually worked or not.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 31 Oct 2013, 07:36

Good luck with making your 'something out of nothing.' I'll wait for some facts.

lookieloo · by **lookieloo** » 31 Oct 2013, 07:38

spazsinbad wrote:Good luck with making your 'something out of nothing.' I'll wait for some facts.

Fair enough.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 31 Oct 2013, 07:56

I have an issue with your statement that needs 'facts/clarification/reference from when to when' etc. How do you know also? What info are you privy to that is not in the public domain. AFAIK all we have had are vague testing guidelines (future) apart from the 'facts' of previous testing - successful - on this thread already:

"...My issue is with the fact that it's been months since said testing took place..."

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 31 Oct 2013, 08:20

Here is a repeat post from page 24 of this thread. Dates are important....

DR. J. MICHAEL GILMORE, DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; BEFORE THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 19 Jun 2013

"...F-35C Flight Sciences. Test point progress has proceeded as planned so far this year for Block 2B envelope expansion in the F-35C; however, no weapons separations or high angle-of-attack testing has been completed. The first set of sea trials are scheduled to start in the summer of 2014 (June 30), with two test aircraft from the flight test center. The first of these two aircraft is scheduled to be modified with the updated arresting hook system and upgraded nose landing gear brace later this year, which will permit catapult and arresting hook testing to begin again. The second aircraft is scheduled to be modified in the spring of 2014. Testing for electromagnetic environmental effects will need to be completed on both aircraft prior to the ship trials as well....

...The program intends to conduct the first set of carrier-based ship trials with two F-35C test aircraft in the summer of 2014. The prerequisite activity with the aircraft leading up to the sea-borne trials is extensive. The new arresting hook system – which has yet to start the planned verification, structural, or durability testing – will have to be installed on both aircraft, and shore-based roll-in testing and hook engagement testing completed with one aircraft, which will compose approximately six months of testing. An improved nose landing gear drag brace, required for catapult launches, will also be a part of the pre-deployment set of modifications. Both aircraft will need to undergo electromagnetic environmental effects testing prior to deployment. For the carrier, the Department of the Navy is working integration issues that will need to be resolved prior to the first operational deployment, but will not necessarily be solved prior to the first set of ship trials. Examples of integration issues include storage of the lithium-ion batteries on the carrier, resupplying engines while underway, and integration of the autonomic logistics information system. Some initial noise and thermal effects testing have been completed at land-based test facilities, and will be a part of the test activity during the first ship trial period. Modifications of the jet blast deflector system on the carrier may be necessary prior to the ship-borne trials to ensure adequate cooling of the deflector during JSF operations...."

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... needs.html (PDF download 107Kb)

lookieloo · by **lookieloo** » 31 Oct 2013, 08:33

spazsinbad wrote:I have an issue with your statement that needs 'facts/clarification/reference from when to when' etc. How do you know also? What info are you privy to that is not in the public domain. AFAIK all we have had are vague testing guidelines (future) apart from the 'facts' of previous testing - successful - on this thread already:
"...My issue is with the fact that it's been months since said testing took place..."

A fair question.

The answer is that I've been going off the other sources on this thread. Hook testing (ground-based) was supposed to start this summer, and the comments in your tailhook video (early September) verified that. We know what everyone says about assuming things; nonetheless, I "assume" that it wouldn't take more than a month for LM to push out some evidence that the F-35C can indeed trap, not with what they have at stake. Based on the way they crowed about previous milestones (no matter how minor), I find their silence in this particular instance to be somewhat disquieting.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 31 Oct 2013, 08:34

Perhaps your meds need to be upgraded?

Another repeat from page 24 of this thread.... Look what is to come - HANG ON TO YOUR HATS!

SHAKE, RATTLE, AND ROLL TESTING (page 20) LT Matthew "Brasso" Davin

"VX-23 Ship Suitability performs Shake, Rattle, and Roll (SRR) loads testing on aircraft, systems, and ordnance to ensure that items under test are able to withstand the high demands of shipboard flight operations. A standard "shake" includes both catapult and arresting gear tests at our unique shore based test facility. On the catapult, we build up to the maximum longitudinal acceleration and maximum off center launch bar engagement. Arrested landing tests are more challenging, and require much more difficult flying techniques.

At the arresting gear test site a shake typically begins with buildup to a high sink landing. Using a MK-8 Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System (FLOLS), the glideslope is gradually increased from 3.5 degrees up to 5.5 degrees or beyond, until greater than 20 feet per second (1200 fpm!) is obtained on touchdown. A "free flight" arrestment is performed such that the hook picks up the wire before the main gear hit the deck, requiring a very shallow and precise approach. A "roll/yaw" test point is performed with greater than 5 degrees wing down and up to full opposite rudder pedal on touchdown. Maximum deceleration test points are achieved by targeting a specific ground speed, which depending on wind requires pilots to fly a non-standard angle of attack anywhere between 6 and 12 degrees. Finally, off-center test points require the pilot to target an 18 ft off-center engagement, hopefully without exceeding 20 ft off-center and downing the arresting gear...."

http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index ... oad&id=670 (PDF 2Mb)

lookieloo · by **lookieloo** » 31 Oct 2013, 08:52

spazsinbad wrote:Perhaps your meds need to be upgraded? Another repeat from page 24 of this thread....

Well, that was uncalled for; and again, that source only tells us what they intended to do with the F-35C back then. Crotchety ribbing aside, I reserve the right to worry until news breaks that the tests were successful, with carrier-trials still due to began next summer.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 31 Oct 2013, 09:24

Your whole premise is uncalled for.

lookieloo · by **lookieloo** » 31 Oct 2013, 09:52

spazsinbad wrote:Your whole premise is uncalled for.

Whether we like it or not, this program's past issues have given everyone premise for doubt, no matter how unreasonable. Let's go through the list of critical silliness so far shall we? (in no particular order)

- Couldn't land vertically on an LHD... until it did.
- Couldn't drop/launch ordnance... until it did.
- Couldn't pull 9g... until it did.
- Couldn't do high-alpha... until it did.
- Couldn't fly with non-test-pilots... until it did.
- Couldn't fly at night... until it did.
- Couldn't trap (at all)... until it did.
- Couldn't actually guide ordnance... until it did.
- Couldn't make it past (pick a number) units produced... until it did.
- Couldn't stop rising in costs... until it did.

I had hoped to have added "couldn't trap reliably... until it did" to this list by now, so I'm just a little frustrated and worried that something might have gone wrong.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 31 Oct 2013, 12:41

I thought you were a troll.

neurotech · by **neurotech** » 31 Oct 2013, 18:26

The issues with the hook were basically "solved" with a combination of modifications and further testing of the F-35C and X-47B which has a similar design. The X-47B was modified after similar issues, and subsequently made 2 arrested landings, and (as I recall) no unplanned bolters. I have full confidence that the F-35C will complete carrier trials as planned.

My biggest concern with the F-35 is they can't do what NASA did with Sen. Bill Nelson and Sen. Jake Garn and suggest some of these politicians and paper pushers put on their flight gear and go up on a mission. Do any of the politicians want to go up in a F/A-18D chase jet to see first hand what the F-35C is capable of? I don't think there is any current fighter pilots in the House or Senate, only RC-12 and KC-135 pilots in the reserves.

lookieloo · by **lookieloo** » 01 Nov 2013, 02:33

neurotech wrote:The issues with the hook were basically "solved" with a combination of modifications and further testing of the F-35C and X-47B which has a similar design. The X-47B was modified after similar issues, and subsequently made 2 arrested landings, and (as I recall) no unplanned bolters. I have full confidence that the F-35C will complete carrier trials as planned.

My biggest concern with the F-35 is they can't do what NASA did with Sen. Bill Nelson and Sen. Jake Garn and suggest some of these politicians and paper pushers put on their flight gear and go up on a mission. Do any of the politicians want to go up in a F/A-18D chase jet to see first hand what the F-35C is capable of? I don't think there is any current fighter pilots in the House or Senate, only RC-12 and KC-135 pilots in the reserves.

Heh... I've often wondered if many of the F-35's problems would be solved with a 2-seat variant. Not that it's operationally necessary in the least, but perhaps various reporters/politicians are simply butthurt by the fact they'll never get a ride in one (this may have been part of the F-22's problem as well).