F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[Timmymagic]

Completely agree Gabriele. The A and the B are the variants that have the most strategic clout politically. Particularly with a (partially) resurgent Russia and a rapidly growing China. The F-35A basically grants colossal over-match in the air to NATO over Russia for the next 30 years with or without the US being as closely engaged as they are (especially as I think no-one believes that there are going to be large, or even moderate numbers of PAK-FA's), and thats without counting the Typhoon's, Rafales and Legacy jets.
If the US wants to re-focus on China, or indeed if it intends to become more isolationist (no doubt without wanting it's influence reduced, which is of course an oxymoron) the F-35 is a crucial part of the jigsaw.

[bobp]

I mentioned this before but recent trials of the F35C have revealed some serious problems with the wing structure on the C, remember they are different to the other versions. AFIK they are scratching heads what to do about it. Secondly the USN do not appear to be keen on buying them obviously the cost a lot, and they are trying to get funds for ship building as well. So if any of the three have to go I suggest its the C.

[Gabriele]

The serious problem with wing structure being excessive stress at the Sidewinder pylons. A fix is due to be trialed in the next few months, so there is no real reason to hype it up so much.

I swear, the Tomcat would have never survived its development and early years in the internet age. When the CNO went in front of the senate begging for a new engine because "it is killing my pilots"... gods. Can you imagine the internet...?

The F-35 is the first (but not the last) aircraft which has to deal with this new complication.

[R686]

I swear, the Tomcat would have never survived its development and early years in the internet age. When the CNO went in front of the senate begging for a new engine because "it is killing my pilots"... gods. Can you imagine the internet...?

The F-35 is the first (but not the last) aircraft which has to deal with this new complication.

Agree
The JSF is the first real plane that had been put through its paces along with the Internet, pre Internet it was up to the media to expose aircraft problems which would be months if not years later, all programs have had their ups and downs, it's just that the infomation is now avalible at your finger tips if you know where to look,


http://www.nytimes.com/1984/07/28/us/f- ... flaws.html

https://www.channel4.com/news/multibill ... d-revealed

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/ne ... /F-18.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... lem-child/

Just a sample,

[shark bait]

Could say that about the Eurofighter project too. That had a rough ride without all the internet experts cherping up too.

It doesn't help that the F35 program has performed abysmally too...

[bobp]

The F-35 is the first (but not the last) aircraft which has to deal with this new complication.

Too true. I am sure eventually when the bugs are all ironed out there will be nothing to beat it.

[Gabriele]

It doesn't help that the F35 program has performed abysmally too...

The thing is, it hasn't when you look at the time it took with the F-22, the Typhoon, the Rafale, in some ways even the Super Hornet. And none of them was trying to do as many things, and new ones, as the F-35 in its 3 variants.
There was way too much arrogance and optimism at the beginning, when targets were set that frankly bordered on asking for miracles.

[shark bait]

By any measure the F35 project has performed like a sack of shit, there's no way to hide that.

However, it's important to distinguish between product and project, despite the protect performing so poorly, the end product still looks good, something many sites seem to forget.

[2HeadsBetter]

"By any measure the F35 project has performed like a sack of shit, there's no way to hide that." - At least it hasn't killed any of its test pilots yet. Touch wood.

[S M H]

However, it's important to distinguish between product and project, despite the protect performing so poorly, the end product still looks good, something many sites seem to forget.

If you compare it to what we were operating for fixed wing aviation. The product is a massive improvement given time to mature has the possibility to become a game changer for our carrier aviation . We forget the teething problems of the planes it is to replace because, they were not subject to the same level of scrutiny that the web enables.

[downsizer]

Let's not forget that time and time again in it's latter days the Harriers were getting swatted out of the sky by Red Air when we went to Rad Flag. There is only so many times the game can be reset and you can retain credibility in a heavily contested environment. This project is the only western one to counter that presently.

[ArmChairCivvy]

credibility in a heavily contested environment. This project is the only western one to counter that presently.

I do not count the Korean. or Turkish, or joint; but
I do count the Gripen NG , and the Japanese (soon to come, on this same channel) stealth fighter

[Spinflight]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/expensive ... ?r=US&IR=T

One hundred and five pilots completing catapult launches rated their level of pain or discomfort on a scale of one to five. Of the 105, 74 pilots reported "moderate" pain or a 3, 18 pilots reported "severe" pain or a 4, and one pilot reported "severe pain that persists" after launching from an aircraft carrier.

Pretty serious problem.

[shark bait]

Dumb article, its provides no base line, that could be a massive improvement.

[Spinflight]

Base line as in?

It's a current problem if that's what you mean, not a historic one. As I recall Gilmore mentioned it slightly obliquely in one of his recent updates, as that of a critical problem which there s no current solution for. More generally referred to as problems regarding uncontrolled oscillations on cat launch, though clearly oscillations with the capability to inflict persistent pain or injury are a bit more than mere oscillations.

[shark bait]

They're presenting this data without also presenting a control group. We can't reach any valid conclusion from the data they present.

What if 80 out of the 105 pilots rate the F-18 as "severe" pain or a 4? In which case the F-35 represents a significant improvement.

[Spinflight]

This isn't an issue on any other aircraft that I know of so I'd imagine the F-18 would be a 0 or 1.

Severe pain that persists would likely indicate a neck injury in this case, I've never heard of an aircraft that routinely injures it's pilots on takeoff.

[Little J]

Doesn't a cat launch every jet at around the same speed, why would pilots feel it more in one fighter over another?

If they're moaning about landings at higher speeds and weights than anything in the past it would make more sense (to me at least).

Also, did anyone else notice the jsf pictured taking off in the article is a Dave B

[shark bait]

I did notice Dave B, another indicator of a dumb article. Seen a few journalists acting smug about all this fake news 'scandal', but many still aren't good.

[Gabriele]

The "bounce" on catapult launch is there on all aircraft, and to a degree it is called for. I believe the Hornet or Super Hornet had the opposite problem, it was too rigid at first and did not bounce the nose up on launch, which you do not want.

For the rest, the difficulties are probably due to not having a HUD. It is probably easier to keep your eyes on a HUD relatively far from your face, than reading the symbology right in front of the eye as you bounce in the seat. They'll get it tuned down.

[Ron5]

During a cat launch the pilot is not reading anything. Jeesh.

[Ron5]

Here's the online news item that was picked up by Popular Mechanics and passed off by Gabby:

Pentagon establishes 'red team' to investigate F-35C nose gear issues, recommends possible redesign
January 04, 2017 |
Lee Hudson
Bookmark and Share

The Pentagon established a "red team" last September to investigate issues with the F-35C's nose gear and the team is recommending that if initial steps to fix the problem fail, the nose gear should be redesigned, Inside Defense has learned.

Last August, Navy fleet aviators from Strike Squadron-101 (VFA-101) were able to evaluate the F-35C catapult shot for the first time during at-sea testing.

"During a catapult launch the nose landing gear strut is compressed as the catapult pulls on the nose landing gear, with the hold back bar restraining the aircraft from forward movement due to engine thrust," according to a Dec. 28 Navy information paper viewed by Inside Defense. "Upon release of the hold back bar, the nose landing gear strut unloads and vertically oscillates as the aircraft accelerates towards take-off."

The motion is not only uncomfortable but the Helmet-Mounted Display and oxygen mask push back and up and down against the pilot's jaw. The jostling in the cockpit results in unreadable HMD during and immediately after launch, the paper reads.

"The Red Team believes multiple factors are contributing to the problem, including the pilot's seat restraint and hand-hold (grab bar) locations, the mass and center-of-gravity of the F-35 helmet and display unit, the physical characteristics of the nose landing gear strut (load vs. stroke, damping), and the length and release load of the repeatable-release hold-back bar (RRHB)," according to the paper.

Red team recommendations

The red team, composed of government and industry personnel, recommends a series of short-term, medium-term and long-term actions for the F-35C.

The short-term actions are slated to begin in early 2017 and will take about two to six months to complete, according to the paper. The actions include implementing improved and standardized restraint procedures for pilots and flight testing later this month on the effects of a reduced RRHB release load. VFA-101 will evaluate both the restraint procedures and a reduced RRHB load during its next carrier qualification period in the spring, the paper reads.

In late 2017, medium-term actions ranging from six to 12 months to complete will begin. These include HMD symbology, nose landing gear modifications and pilot motion modeling. Regarding symbology, "Options are being considered that would simplify the information displayed to the pilot during and immediately after catapult launch, to make it easier for the pilot to interpret flight-critical data," the paper notes. One of the problems here is the contractor doesn't think there is enough time in the system design and development phase to demonstrate this in simulation, according to the paper.

Long-term actions would not begin until 2019 and would take 12 to 36 months to complete. These include RRHB geometry that would reduce compression of the nose gear strut before launch. This course of action may require ship modifications, according to the red team.

Another long-term action is a nose landing gear redesign. A redesign is not being pursued because of highly constrained design space.

"A redesign could incorporate all the benefits of the advanced modeling efforts, but is expected to require a multiyear effort to re-qualify a major redesign," according to the paper.

Navy carrier qualification report

Further, Navy pilots determined the catapult launch for the Joint Strike Fighter is "not operationally suitable" after conducting extensive at-sea testing, according to a Navy carrier qualification report viewed by Inside Defense.

The F-35 joint program office is looking for fixes for the problems highlighted in the report, according to F-35 spokeswoman Brandi Schiff.

VFA-101 sent 12 pilots to the George Washington (CVN-73) for carrier qualification testing last August.

"Combined, the pilots have nearly 23,000 tactical flight hours and over 4,600 arrested landings in the F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet, and the F-14 Tomcat," according to the VFA-101 initial carrier qualification report. "Over the course of two days, each pilot accomplished two touch and go landings, 10 arrested landings, and the accompanying catapult shots for [carrier qualification]."

Documentation dating back to November 2014 reveals the developmental test community raised concerns about the F-35C catapult launch.

For example, a deficiency report issued in December 2015 that aggregated data from six previous reports acknowledged the catapult was suitable to continue developmental testing but would not be acceptable by fleet standards. VFA-101's at-sea testing last August was the first time fleet aviators could evaluate the catapult shot.

During a catapult shot, the pilot would experience extreme movement in the cockpit that poses a risk to his or her health, according to the deficiency report.

After each catapult operation pilots were asked to assess their pain level on a scale from 0 to 5. Out of a total of 105 catapult shots 74 of those caused pilots "moderate pain" or a three rating. Eighteen catapult shots caused pilots "severe pain" or a four rating. One catapult shot was deemed a five rating or "severe pain that persists" with the pilot suffering from neck pain and a headache, and 12 catapult shots scored a two rating or "mild pain." None of the 105 catapult shots received a one rating of "slight discomfort" or a zero rating of "no discomfort or pain," according to the Navy report.

"The oscillations shake the pilot's head sufficiently to impair their ability to consistently read flight critical data, which poses a safety of flight risk," the report reads.

Pilots were also asked to rate HMD readability for each catapult operation on a scale of 0 to 4. After 51 catapult operations pilots rated readability a three or "difficult viewing anything in HMD." Nine catapult shots received a two rating or "able to view only critical HMD data" and seven received a four rating or "cannot view anything in HMD." None of the catapult operations received a zero rating of "easy to view all HMD data" or a one rating of "able to view most HMD data."

In order to compensate for the additional movement in the cockpit, most VFA-101 pilots locked down their harnesses.

This workaround poses a safety risk because it makes the ejection difficult to reach or the pilots would have to unlock their harnesses.

"In the current state, F-35C carrier operations must be performed under strict operational risk management with ideal environmental conditions and seasoned pilots are also required," according to the report.

F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan told reporters during a Dec. 19 roundtable at his office in Arlington, VA, "there's no doubt" his team has to find a solution to the nose gear.

However, he stressed, "the only time that is a problem with the C model is at very light gross weights. At medium weights and at heavy weights you don't see this problem at all."

Bogdan said his office is considering numerous short-term fixes, including changing the way pilots strap themselves into the aircraft and how they hold the straps.

"The long-term fix surely would be one that you would mechanically fix so that you don't have to make the pilots do any kind of special combinations," Bogdan said. "That fix is probably a couple of years off."

During night operations the oscillations caused by the catapult launch require ideal conditions in order to minimize pilot disorientation, the Navy report reads.

Another problem identified during the August at-sea testing was a high rate of tire wear. For example, VFA-101 required new main-mount tires after three field carrier landing practice sessions.

[SDL]

sadly, this is being used by certain parties to push the narrative that the entire F35 program is bad, not just the C...

[Bring Deeps]

Not sure if this has been posted already. Interesting article about RAF Marham. The writer also clearly thinks the F35A will be bought for the RAF out of the 138.

http://www.defencesynergia.co.uk/raf-ma ... htning-ll/

[ArmChairCivvy]

Yes, gives perspective to the scale, esp. when
"the existing front line Tornado GR4 squadron capability that is required to remain fully operational right up until final drawdown of the three remaining Tornado GR4 squadrons by the 31st March 2019".

The above may not imply simultaneous drawdown, but does give a clear end point (three Quarters after the first - and by then only - F-35 sqdrn will have arrived).
- common sense to make the two Tranche 1 Tiffie sqdrns to be in existence over the long build up (from there on)