It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F-35 Vertical Landings in doubt for UK Airshows

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
The F-35B will be making its debut at two UK airshows this year, including one flying display. However, don't be surprised if you don't get to see it doing any vertical landings (which kind of defeats the purpose of sending B models). According to the head of Marine Corps Aviation, it's doubtful that any vertical landings will be performed, because they haven't yet finished testing matting required to protect the runway from the hot exhaust temperatures.

The exhaust of the F-35B is so hot that is causes normal concrete to spall (water in the concrete boils faster than it can escape, and it blows pieces of concrete off the top layers). It's not known if this will damage the RAM on the aircraft or not, or how much damage it will do to a normal runway.

This is just one of the latest examples of Lockheed Martin playing fast and loose with the truth when it comes to the F-35 program. In 2009, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) issued instructions on building pads and runways for the F-35. According to tests, the engine was hot and energetic enough to have a 50% chance of causing spalling on the first landing.

LM responded by saying that their tests in 2010 showed that the exhaust on the F-35B was only marginally hotter than the AV-8B, and the data used in the specifications was outdated. NAVFAC has asked several times why the 2010 tests didn't show any requirement to change the specifications, and LM has not answered to this day.

In 2011, the Selected Acquisition Report showed that F-35A flight hours were 40% more than the F-16. LM responded that the accountants had misinterpreted their own numbers. There have been two subsequent reports, and the numbers are essentially unchanged.

What's interesting is that no one will say when tests will take place on various materials to determine what will happen in a vertical landing. Or in multiple landings close together.


The British public may be disappointed if, after enduring traffic mayhem and paying for their Fairford and Farnborough show tickets, they expect to see the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter emulate the vertical landings (VL) that the AV-8 Harrier family has made routine since the Beatles were playing dodgy nightclubs in Hamburg.

U.S. Marine Corps aviation boss Brig. Gen. Matthew Glavy has said there are no plans for the F-35B to perform VLs in the U.K., because the program staff has not finished testing the matting that is needed to protect the runway from exhaust heat. (The program office, Marines and Lockheed Martin did not return emails about any part of this story.) It may sound like a simple issue, but it pops the lids off two cans of worms: the program’s relationship with the truth, and the operational utility of VL.

In December 2009, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Navfac) issued specifications for contractors bidding on JSF construction work. The main engine exhaust, the engineers said, was hot and energetic enough to have a 50% chance of spalling concrete on the first VL. “Spalling” occurs when water in the concrete boils faster than it can escape, and steam blows flakes away from the surface.

AvWeek




posted on May, 28 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
What advantages does the F35B engine have over the tried and tested technology of the Harrier?

I'm not an aviation expert, I've seen (up close) a Harrier doing VTOL, and I enjoy my time on MSFSX (as well as War Thunder), but that's as far as it goes with my knowledge. (I do have a real passion for British WWII craft though).

Thanks.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: woogleuk

The F-35B is much easier to fly, and much much more forgiving in the vertical landing mode. From what I've heard, Harrier pilots were lucky to get their nose gear within 8-10 feet of their aim point, where the F-35 is usually well under 2 feet off.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: woogleuk

The F-35B is much easier to fly, and much much more forgiving in the vertical landing mode. From what I've heard, Harrier pilots were lucky to get their nose gear within 8-10 feet of their aim point, where the F-35 is usually well under 2 feet off.

Yes, I just looked at a heap of video from Lockheed, it is gobsmackingly so controlled in VTOL, and in linear flight. I don't get the bit about the matting though, some of the video's seem to have it already in use over concrete, (including one with a British pilot) unless they keep changing the format. There was not much in the way of maneuverability exhibited though, and that swivelling duct looks sooo vulnerable. VTOL does look cool alright, but it still must have so many limitations. The short take-off video is good though.
In edit, good thread BTW

edit on 28-5-2014 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
What are your perceptions of the F35?

Would you consider it a stud or dud? After taking a long look at Russian fighter jets, my worry is that if it comes to dog fighting, or aerial combat, it might be outclassed. Its trump card is its stealh capabilities.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Pax River built four pads for hover testing, all with concrete, with an aluminum covering to help dissipate the heat. All were built to the 2009 standards.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: cenpuppie

There are other reasons that it is necessary. It will never do everything they want it to, but as long as the other capabilities work as advertised, it will be worth the money.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: woogleuk

I think they referred to the Harrier as the widow maker....other than it's use in the Falkland Islands I could never understand why we would even continue servicing the plane...



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
We may not like it but we need it. We absolutely have to replace our fleet of outdated fighters. They won't last too much longer.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: chrismarco

It was an interesting learning curve, that's for sure. They started with their best pilots (USMC), and had no accidents, so thought it was easy to fly.

So they put rookies into it, and they dropped like flies. They had an atrocious crash rate in them.

So they figured if anyone could fly it, then it would be helicopter pilots. They were great at hovering and the vertical portion of flight, but horizontal flight happened so much faster they couldn't keep up, and had a number of CFIT accidents.

Eventually they figured things out, but the early years, if you were assigned to the AV-8B, you better have made sure your will was up to date.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

Especially with the new Russian weapons coming online in the near future.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Doesn't the F-35 use lift fan technology as compared to the directed jet thrust of the Harrier? I think the lift fans have better control for landing and take off than the jet thrust technology.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
What about doing it on the grass?

I'm struggling to believe this tbh...

The F-35 has been plagued with set backs and faults, I'm wondering if this is just BS to cover up yet more issues

I hear to many times from so many aviation expert how the F-35 is one big expensive combat turkey, it's many year behind schedule Christ this is just getting ridiculous



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: boomer135
We may not like it but we need it. We absolutely have to replace our fleet of outdated fighters. They won't last too much longer.


Tbh the the whole thing stinks f

The YF-23 should have won the contract over the F-22

And the JSF program should have been canned and the F-22 used instead of the F-35 with naval variants

Just a little more thinking, common sense and communication would have save a #load of money and time, not to mention been a way more capable formidable airforce

Oh well I guess the F-35 will need baby sitting as soon as TSHTF



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Double.
edit on 28-5-2014 by smurfy because: Double.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: cenpuppie

There are other reasons that it is necessary. It will never do everything they want it to, but as long as the other capabilities work as advertised, it will be worth the money.

It is plug and play alright, but that begs the question, is it already outmoded and already needs updating?
I mean aircraft carrier busting missiles, (that includes the USS Ronny Raygun) UAV's in any configuration. What about the Marines? how is a F35 gonna help them if there is nowhere to land safely and reorganise, no carrier to return to, with a short range and low armament, and a F35 Chinese copy to boot..if they ever build one.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

No, because it's having upgrades done already. They were programmed into the development schedule.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

Yes, the B model uses a lift fan, with a rotating exhaust nozzle to balance the lift.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TritonTaranis

Even the A-10 would have trouble operating from the grass. That's the only platform that could even think about it.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: cenpuppie
What are your perceptions of the F35?

Would you consider it a stud or dud? After taking a long look at Russian fighter jets, my worry is that if it comes to dog fighting, or aerial combat, it might be outclassed. Its trump card is its stealh capabilities.


I think traditional dogfighting is a thing of the past. Although I know that in the event of a major war, even with all this new technology, some aspects will fall back on tried and tested methods. But nowadays you can shoot a plane down from so far away and you might not even physically see the aircraft firing at you. So I am not sure what considerations they gave to something like that, or what type of missions they intend to use the F-35 for.

It has a more aesthetically pleasing design in my opinion. And the military loves new and expensive things. That is partly why they wanted to scrap the A-10. I would imagine that the inclusion of new technologies makes the F-35 a better overall aircraft, especially where flight control is concerned, but I don't know if that is justification for the price tag, considering the Harriers are still perfectly good aircraft, even if they are not as advanced or easy to fly.
edit on 5/28/14 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join