jessmo24i feel like we are constantly rehashing the same issues.
jessmo24Here is a bet for you: F35B will be the last time all that effort is wasted on a expensive STOVL warplane.
Super Hornet would be the best aircraft for the RN Carriers on cost grounds.
F35C would be best aircraft otherwise.
F35B is a huge waste of money -and less capable- but the RAF like it.
Interestingly the only British weapons F35B will carry -not that it can carry very much of anything- are 500lb Pavways, UK dropped everything else because of expense.
Might I remind you that the British would have to spend money to qualify expensive weapons on the F-18 as well as the F-35C. you think storm shadow and brimstone are F-18 certified?
jessmo24Here is a bet for you: F35B will be the last time all that effort is wasted on a expensive STOVL warplane.
Super Hornet would be the best aircraft for the RN Carriers on cost grounds.
F35C would be best aircraft otherwise.
F35B is a huge waste of money -and less capable- but the RAF like it.
Interestingly the only British weapons F35B will carry -not that it can carry very much of anything- are 500lb Pavways, UK dropped everything else because of expense.
so let me get this striaght
1. STovls tactical usefulness has been demonstrated in the stan, and you still doubt?
2. F-117 equivalent
3. Flies off of small carriers, takes off from your back yard.
4. Can absolutely destroy anything short of an F-22 In BVR combat!
5. Is a flying sensor node Mini AWAcs with the ability to enhance your entire legacy fleets SA.
6. the same range class as a F-18c Mig 29 ect
and your calling it a waste of money.
What would the Brits and U.S. marines have done if they had gotten rid of stovl years ago. How would early operations in the stan be achieved?
jessmo24It took a long time and 80-plus rocket sled runs, but the Martin-Baker US16E ejection seat for the Joint Strike Fighter has been qualified to 550 knots for a full range of pilots, just 50 knots short of the specification. However, Goodrich is still mounting a challenge with the ACES 5 seat, claiming that it will offer lower life-cycle costs. Both seats were on display at the Air Force Association convention, held earlier this week at a remote site in Maryland.
The JSF ejection system design is challenging in several ways. The seat has to deliver high performance because a STOVL landing problem could mean ejecting at low altitude from a descending aircraft that is also yawed or pitched out of level flight. The JSF is also the first fighter designed to accommodate 95 percent of the potential US pilot population, with body weights from 103 to 245 pounds. Together, these two requirements mean that the lightest pilots experience most acceleration.
The JSF’s helmet-mounted display, for all the sophistication of its engineering, is heavier and more forward-weighted than a standard helmet. The result is that the pilot’s head tips forward on ejection: the concern is not just the forward tip itself, but the slam-back effect as the seat hits the airstream and a 550-knot windblast forces the pilot’s head against the seat.
Visible for the first time at AFA was Martin-Baker’s solution to the problem: an airbag system stowed in the headrest, which deploys to either side of the pilot’s head, preventing lateral movement, and then controls the slam-back by deflating at a fixed rate.
blog post photo
The Goodrich approach is different, with an articulating headrest resembling a baseball catcher’s mitt. The device follows the head down as the ejection sequence starts, and as the pilot’s head starts to blow back, captures the helmet and uses shock absorbers to control the speed of the motion.
blog post photo
Also visible to the right of the seat is the passive arm-restraint system developed for the ACES 5, comprising nets extended by a hinged arm that deploys under acceleration. The pilot’s arms are forced into the net by the windblast, but restrained by the net to avoid injury,
Goodrich is claiming a lower life-cycle cost for the ACES 5, mainly because the pyrotechnics and some other routinely replaceable components are common to the widely used ACES 2 series.
Meanwhile, some program insiders are still worried about the other element of the JSF escape mechanism, the Transparency Removal System (TRS). The problem is that the JSF canopy is relatively thick because the transparency is in one piece, for stealth reasons – so the entire canopy has to be at or close to windshield thickness.
The F-16 and F-22 have a similar configuration, but the canopy is jettisoned before the seat fires. This is unacceptable for STOVL or CV operations, so the JSF has a combination of explosive cord and mechanical breakers to remove the canopy – again, this is a proven technique, but not on a canopy as thick as JSF’s. There is some concern that the canopy can fracture into large, sharp-edged shards, posing an
jessmo24Lockheed to preserve F-22 tooling for future use
By Stephen Trimble
Lockheed Martin confirms the US Air Force has decided to retain tooling for the F-22 after the production line in Marietta, Georgia, shuts down as scheduled in 2012.
The decision means that USAF officials will be able to repair and modernise the service’s aircraft, or manufacture new Raptors.
Lockheed says tools with “near-term needs” will be retained on site. Others will be preserved and stored in large, bar-coded steel containers commonly used by the shipping industry, which it says reduces “costs associated with conventional warehousing”.
Air force officials were not immediately available to comment, but have previously said that a decision to preserve F-22 tooling would be intended to support a future service life-extension programme for the stealth fighter
jessmo24http://www.military.com/news/article/army-news/new-f22-facility-opens-at-hill-afb.html
New F-22 Facility Opens at Hill AFB
September 16, 2010
Army News Service|by Carlos Lazo
HILL AIR FORCE BASE, Utah — U.S. Sen. Robert Bennett, U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop and other representatives from the state of Utah joined U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Andrew E. Busch, commander of the Ogden Air Logistics Center, and other Air Force and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representatives to cut the ribbon at a new F-22 facility here Sept. 9.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District built the $39.2 million facility, officially known as the F-22 Fuel Composite Overhaul Test Facility.
“As a senator from Utah, I am grateful that Hill is growing,” said Bennett.
The 75,000 square-foot facility will be primarily used for painting, and was built to fully accommodate the F-22 aircraft, known as the Raptor.
Click here to find out more!
“This building is here because of teamwork,” said Busch. “This is an excellent example of teamwork that is needed to be able to sustain the Air Force for the next several generations.”
The facility includes three paint booths, a maintenance bay and administrative and supply offices. Each paint booth is capable of housing an F-22 aircraft and is supported by machines that allow for the complete control of the atmosphere inside the booth. The temperature, humidity and airflow are all monitored by the machines, providing the pristine conditions for painting.
“They control the environment inside to make the painting application for the composite paint,” said Jason Redeen, project engineer with the Sacramento District’s Utah resident office. “It’s one of a kind for the F-22.”
The resident office oversaw the construction of the facility.
The facility’s maintenance bay includes a three-ton crane and a completely mechanized tool room. Workers will be able to select a tool from a list, and the machines within the room will find and provide the tool to the worker.
Learn more about the F-22 at Military.com’s Equipment Guide
Safety was also an important part of the design of the facility.
“Because this is a fueled aircraft hanger – aircraft come in here fueled – it poses a hazard for explosive reasons,” said Redeen. “We have a foam dump system. It’s like a secondary fire protection system.”
Each paint booth and the maintenance bay have large ducts in the ceiling that delivers the fire-retardant foam.
The ducts have two doors or openings, which prevent paint fumes from entering the foam dump system during normal operations. In the event of a fire, the doors would open simultaneously, one dumping foam and one pulling air out. During testing, the foam system performed extremely well.
“It covered the entire floor with a meter-deep (of foam) within one minute,” said Redeen.
The facility is fully operational and work will begin immediately, with the first aircraft coming in for paint within weeks.
As impressive as the $39.2 million facility is, it is only the beginning.
The facility is phase one of a two-phase complex planned for the base. The second phase consists of a $45 million, 90,000 square-foot. facility, which is already under construction. This second facility will add an additional paint booth, three maintenance bays, administrative and supply offices, and a blast booth. The blast booth will be used to remove old paint from the aircraft prior to painting. A robotic system within the booth will spray planes down and take off all of the old paint, said Redeen. “They can then tow the plane out of the blast booth and into one of the paint booths.”
jessmo24jessmo24The bottom line is that the marines love there organic air, and you’ll have to pry it from there cold dead hands to take it away. YOU may not like it but that’s the way things are. so lets accept the F-35B for what it is and move on.
back on topic plz.
jessmo24Marine F-18’s and Harriers were based at friendly airfields, sometimes side by side w/ Air Force (and Navy jets) in Desert Storm – they used much the same land based facilities – and not so much at the front.
AT-6B’s, Super Tucanos, and Air Tractors have fixed wings, endurance, and austere basing capability, but not the speed or load capacity of the jets – it is definitely a tradeoff. There is a new AGM in the works to replace both the Hellfire and Maverick that should work well with these planes. Strap on a 25mm gun pod and you are gtg.
You should be more worried about the USAF going off on their own agenda than the Navy. WWII is not a good historical example because the USN had to defend against a formidable enemy fleet during the Guadalcanal Campaign. Later in the war, navy aircraft were more available to assist with ground operations – although the kamikaze threat soaked up a lot of sorties. After WWII, land campaigns were regularly supported by carrier based air – although not as responsive as the Marine may have wanted. In Korea, the Marines used F4U-4/5’s because unlike the jets, they could operate from primitive (and often contested) forward airfields with short runways. Later, the Marines experimented with land catapults driven by J79’s (!) to launch jets from short fields – which is why they ultimately settled on STOVL jets – which are no longer necessary given the Marines actual basing practice, and impractical from a logistics point of view.
The Marines have become a second land army (light infantry, but lately with some heavy armor) – a role the need to shed if the want to remain unique. The Marine’s role should be to seize strategic maritime objectives – like ports, coastal cities and airfields, and other facilities – in concert with the navy. Once the objective is secured, let the army move in with their heavy stuff and the Air Force their tacair. The point is let the Marines be amphibious and mobile – like they have been since their inception.
How is WW2 not a good example when Guadalcanal was the catalyst!?
I didn’t say you would launch a F-35B from a barn, I said it allows greater flexibility in basing Have you Humped in the stan? Do you know how it was to wait on strategic bombers for cas? You want the marines to be a second army, but what happens when they are land locked? wouldn’t it be nice to have a forward staging area so that carrier air craft dont need 1 million refueling to get to you on time? Yes the marines operate in a joint environment. but like to know that if that Af F-16 is 30 minutes away and that carrier is on the edge of the theater that there is a marine somewhere over head
jessmo24So if you where a marine commander and you where where put ashore would you put your full trust that you could do away with all your own fixed wing air assets? Do you believe the navy would stay in Littoral waters, and not move there ships farther out? Look at history! whats more important to the admiral?
jessmo24That’s not the issue. It’s what happens to the surface directly under the hot rear nozzle.
you keeping ignoring the18k pounds of thrust forward. if its strong enough to block the rear nozzel, what makes you think it has no effect on the ground. Like I said before go stand under it and prove to us it has no ground effect.
jessmo24Check video 2 about 24:20 In hi discusses how the forward cool air interacts with the rear nozzle air and blocks hot gasses from entering the intakes.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/03/video-history-of-the-f-35-by-s.html
Lets hope this helps on the discussion of hot gasses. the problems was never from the rear nozzle the problem was the IPP. the aux power unit.
jessmo24Good picture that Jessmo…shows exactly how much space is wasted by having a stupid fan there 😉
1. The Marines want STOVL
2. This is because of Guadalcanal inn WW2 when the navy made a decision to move fleet support hundreds of miles out rather than stick it out with the marines. The Marines vowed after that never to ever deploy with out there own organic air support.
3. F-35B would mean the Marines can also retire there F-18c and become less dependent on Large deck carriers.
4. With new anti-access and ballistic missile threats Looming large deck carriers are even more at risk. even though F-35Bs wont roll in the mud, it helps having the flexibility of basing.
5. The Lift fan takes up the space of a fuel tank. the F-35B still has the range of a early model F-16 or mig 29 or F-18C
jessmo24Check video 2 about 24:20 In hi discusses how the forward cool air interacts with the rear nozzle air and blocks hot gasses from entering the intakes.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/03/video-history-of-the-f-35-by-s.html
jessmo24They talk about here in video one using Mass rather than velocity
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/03/video-history-of-the-f-35-by-s.html
Sign In
