First, read this story from USNI News about the Navy restarting tests of the X-47.
Second, consider a couple of things....
1. The Navy put out a "feeler" to buy additional Super Hornets and Growlers.
2. The Chief of Naval Operations has stated flat out that he didn't (and I'm paraphrasing) believe that stealth is as vaunted a capability as many think.
3. The F-35 is still a no show for carrier qualifications.
4. The Navy has stated that the Super Hornet is viable until after 2030. They are already working on a 6th generation fighter.
5. Sequestration continues.
Now look at the photo above.
The Super Hornet & X-47 are the plan B.
The Navy is pushing ahead and I almost believe that failure of the tail hook is believed to be inevitable. I've been scratching my head at the desperation being displayed by Lockheed Martin, the Program Office, Amos and others to gather additional sales.
The loss of the C variant is the only answer. Thats why they have practically soiled themselves over the S. Korean order. They desire that order if they have a snowballs chance in hell of keeping costs even remotely reasonable.
I've looked at the numbers and they should have a buffer by now. But take the Navy C's and the Marine Corps carriers requirement out of the equation and suddenly they're behind the eight ball.
Second, consider a couple of things....
1. The Navy put out a "feeler" to buy additional Super Hornets and Growlers.
2. The Chief of Naval Operations has stated flat out that he didn't (and I'm paraphrasing) believe that stealth is as vaunted a capability as many think.
3. The F-35 is still a no show for carrier qualifications.
4. The Navy has stated that the Super Hornet is viable until after 2030. They are already working on a 6th generation fighter.
5. Sequestration continues.
Now look at the photo above.
The Super Hornet & X-47 are the plan B.
The Navy is pushing ahead and I almost believe that failure of the tail hook is believed to be inevitable. I've been scratching my head at the desperation being displayed by Lockheed Martin, the Program Office, Amos and others to gather additional sales.
The loss of the C variant is the only answer. Thats why they have practically soiled themselves over the S. Korean order. They desire that order if they have a snowballs chance in hell of keeping costs even remotely reasonable.
I've looked at the numbers and they should have a buffer by now. But take the Navy C's and the Marine Corps carriers requirement out of the equation and suddenly they're behind the eight ball.
The silence on the tail hook redesign is deafening. I mean come on, the only thing they can to do is change the shape and the damper, how freaking long does that take??? USN isn't big enough customer for LMT to hurry up??? With CAD and supercomputers, they should have a good idea on simulations if it works out, shouldn't be that freaking hard to install on a -C and do some ground tests by now.
ReplyDeletethey can't solve it with that bandaid because NAVAIR won't play along. if the think isn't carrier safe then those boys won't give a FUCK about LM, the Pentagon, the DoD, or even the President. they won't sign off.
Deletenow they might be ordered to but even that won't fly. Greenert would have to step in and he wouldn't risk his rep on a flimsy risk. too many pilots have died landing on carriers for this fat ass hog to get a pass for the sake of a pencil whip.
what does that mean? it means that they're having to redesign the entire underfuselage to get a workable option going. that means delays. that means changes in specs. that means added costs. that means the Navy will balk, Boeing will pounce and the Super Hornet and X-47 are the future carrier wing. the really crazy thing? the USMC will be forced to buy Super Hornets if it still has a carrier mission. if the worst happens then the Navy will use those allocated monies to get the Ultra Hornet package.
but with the possibility of 3 carriers going away then the need for the F-35 might have gone away too.
either way the F-35 is fucked.
It is amazing that Northrop Gruman has engineered/taken an aircraft, sans pilot, which had its first flight in 2011 and is already testing off an actual carrier deck. Yet, LMC's F-35 with pilot, which took its first flight in 2006 (FIVE YEARS EARLIER), has yet to begin to test on a real deck. I think that it is safe to say that LMC should stay away from the water, especially after the LCS. I think i read this morning that it was stuck in port in Singapore with electrical problems. LMC is better at acquiring companies that have built revolutionary machines and upgrading their software/avionics/weapons system, and they should leave the manufacture of large volume purchase to companies like Boeing and Northrop, who know what they are doing. I can not name one successful fighter, less the p-38 they have built. The F-104 was a shiny dick with a big motor, so not a fighter, and the F-16 doesn't count because it was created by General Dynamics. Anyway, back to my original point, the X-47 beating the F-35C to a carrier deck is pretty damming! Happy Birthday brothers and sisters (a day let), and thank you to everyone else who served. Semper Fi!
ReplyDelete*(a day late) - typing to fast
Deleteback at ya brother! Semper!
DeleteWell, maybe the Iranians will be able to hack this Dorito as well. A drone is a damn sitting duck for a SAM, and AA gun, or an enemy fighter.
DeleteThey are highly specialized pieces of hardware they will be slaughtered by a pilot in a jet.
This thing only carries 2 guided bombs, no gun, no AAMs, and costs a cool 80 million a pop.
Nice try David, trying to change the subject. We aren't talking about that, we are talking about why the F35 flew in 2006 and hasn't trapped on a real carrier?!? It was supposed to be some real simple fix but NG is already back on trials when as far as everyone knew, X47s were being sent to the closest museum. Why isn't the F35C trying out the new redesign?
DeleteCheers NICO
DeleteDM - "X" means experimental. We do not know what the final UCLASS configuration will be, but we'll know more next month. Theoretically, a UAV would be able to outmaneuver a manned jet because it is not G constrained by the pilot. The fact is that the X-47B went from first flight to first trap in 2 years, and at $80M (your number,) it is certainly is a bargain when compared to the F-35C LRIP price, and the FRP price - whatever that turns out to be.
DeleteThe point is at least we know the X47 can trap, we don't know that is true of F35C....but hey, why should LMT be in any kind of rush? you know, like bothering being on time and on budget, proving to one of your main customers that your product delivers as promised....nah, let's wait another year or two....
DeleteAny G's a UCAV can pull, a missile can pull the same more. Also, strengthening the airframe adds costs and weight.
DeleteThe X-47 also failed multiple trap attempts, so it wasn't a raring success.
6. The CNO is eager to cancel F-35C procurerment.
ReplyDeleteNov 7, 2013
CNO Testifies Before Senate Armed Services Committee
Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Greenert, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee today. The focus was on the impact and effects of sequestration on our national defense. . ."Also, we will cancel procurement of at least 11 tactical aircraft."
http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2013/11/07/cno-testifies-before-senate-armed-services-committee/
well said. like Nico pointed out the silence on the tailhook has been deafening. but what got me going is how much pressure was put on the S. Korean AF to change requirements so that they would buy the jet. something else entirely was motivating that and then i saw the story on the X-47. it all made sense.
DeleteOnly one or two of those will be F-35Cs unfortunately, at least as of now. But one scenario has the -C IOC being delayed 2 more years.
DeleteI have looked at this too. The Navy's UCLASS unmanned combat aerial vehicle program still has it's specifications degraded to a light weight ISR/counter terrorist platform. However, if the Navy has the combination of UCLASS and the stealth/longer range upgrades provided by the Advanced Super Hornet program, they will get all of the capability that the other services have. In fact, once they have the UCLASS and upgraded Super Hornet there will be literally nothing that the F-35C could bring to the table that the Navy won't already have.
ReplyDeleteAdmiral Greenert is the only chief that I like and respect because he plays his own game for the Navy's benefit. The other chiefs are playing checkers while the CNO plays chess like a boss.
One thing has become evident though: The US Navy does not need the F-35C. The F-35 program needs the US Navy.
F-35C tailhook
ReplyDeleteBecause the tail-hook has to fit within the outer mold line of the F-35, the device had to be fitted further forward on the jet's ventral surface than on other naval aircraft, Burbage said. The result is that the hook behaves differently than on previous fighters like the F/A-18.
tailhook geometry
ldg gear to tailhook pt is 7.1 ft
other a/c 30.2' to 14.6'
F/A 18 18.2'
Unlike conventional land-based aircraft, naval aircraft don't flare on landing. While the landing is on a more precise spot, it causes the tail-hook to oscillate vertically- which increases the chances that it won't catch a wire. In an ideal world, an arresting-hook will catch a wire 100 percent of the time, however in the real world that doesn't happen due to various dynamic forces, the veteran former Navy test pilot said.
In the case of the F-35, one of those dynamic forces includes the way the wires react when the jet passes over them. The wire reacts in a sine wave pattern, Burbage said. "The time differential between when the main gear rolls over the cable and the time the hook picks up the cable on a more convention airplane, there is more time for that wave to damp out," he said. "In the case of the F-35, one of our design constraints is that hook just has to be closer to the main landing gear than on a conventional aircraft because of the requirement to hide it inside the airplane."
tailhook history
ReplyDelete2011
Quick Look Review (QLR) of November 2011 says that all eight run-in/rolling tests undertaken at NAS Lakehurst in August 2011 to see if the F-35C could catch a wire with the tail hook have failed. "Three major AHS design issues:” (1) the location of the tailhook on the airframe; (2) the tailhook design, and (3) ineffective performance of the tailhook’s hold-down damper, located on the airframe. "The good news is that it's fairly straight forward and isolated to the hook itself," said Tom Burbage
2012
Redesign of the arresting hook system for the F-35C to correct the inability to consistently catch cables and compensate for greater than predicted loads took place in 2012. The redesign includes modified hook point shape to catch the wire, one-inch longer shank to improve point of entry, addition of damper for end-of-stroke loads, increased size of upswing damper and impact plate, addition of
end-of-stroke snubber. Tests looked good, but higher than predicted loads at upper portion.
2013
Redesign tailhook again. “It’s now in line with what the legacy aircraft uses." More testing required. LM: The F-35C "will go to the boat in 2014, as [re-]scheduled."
You have to love the sense of urgency at LMT....*sarcasm*.
DeleteThe P-51 Mustang made its maiden flight on October 26, 1940, less than nine months from first being drawn up. After some testing and changes, 20 of the Mustang I were delivered to the RAF and made their combat debut in May, 1942, nineteen months after its maiden flight.
DeleteHoly Shit Donald, ar you HONESTLY comparing a P-51 to an F-35................
DeleteCommand changes for UCAS program office
ReplyDeletePatuxent River, MD, Oct 21, 2013
The Department of the Navy's Unmanned Combat Air System Program Office (PMA-268) welcomed a new leader during a change of command ceremony here Oct. 17 where Navy Capt. Beau Duarte replaced Capt. Jaime Engdahl as PMA-268’s program manager. . .Thursday’s ceremony also marked the official redefinition of PMA-268, as the program welcomed the Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike System Advanced Developmental program office (UCLASS ADPO) into the fold. The new program is responsible for managing UCAS-D and UCLASS while continuing to prove unmanned capability in the dynamic carrier environment.
http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/34097
It's why the USN should back away from the F-35C and work on their back up plan the Super hornet.
ReplyDeleteIt always does my heart good to see at least one service is refusing to play ball with this dog of an aircraft.
ReplyDeleteMy periodic gentle reminder--
ReplyDeleteUSMC slated total buy -- 340 F-35B and 80 F-35C
i really and truly believe that you can scratch those 80 F-35C's. if the Navy cuts 3 carriers then you can change the name tapes on the sides of super hornets and put Marines in the seats or even better probably from a Navy point of view is that you can simply have an all Navy air wing. that would open the door to the Army getting aboard aircraft carriers and for the Navy to tie into SOCOM even more.
Deletehave a special mission for your carrier in the Gulf? then how about we leave a few sh behind and put your aircraft on our deck. they'll be ok because we were getting ready to have stealth aircraft aboard so you helos won't get as salted up....
Maybe that's the plan B+ or C. The plan B is functional already since the introduction of the Growler and it's first mission in Syria, but they are not the only ones taking advantage of it, also the Australians and other coalition forces.
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=uX_lrWFLeIo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpIq1RQ7jJM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
www.youtube.com/watch?v=n60xUJCmrZY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Sorry, Lybia...
ReplyDeleteThe HUD helmet is another (of many) issue with the F-35, and I've stuck my oar into the water with mangler muldoon on this issue over at American Innovation.
ReplyDeletehttp://manglermuldoon.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-benefits-of-stealth-and-situational.html
I don't mind your objections Don. Even though I don't agree with you on this issue, having a devil's advocate around is useful as it keeps people from becoming intellectually complacent.
Deletenews report
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Navy has a begun a second set of sea-trials for its Northrop Grumman X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System-Demonstrator (UCAS-D) aircraft onboard the carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) about 60 nautical miles off the Virginia coast.
You might want to re-check that info about the Navy "sending out feelers" about buying new Super Hornets and/or Growlers -- apparently, that was a mistake; the Navy never planned to buy more of those planes.
ReplyDeleteMy only problem with that is that it edges on the kind of thought process one would normally associate with a conspiracy theorist.
DeleteFor example: the idea that the statement had the support of the top brass. You're basically saying that it would be impossible for some press officer to release incorrect information without having it properly vetted. Yes, it is true that most information is vetted, but the idea that it is impossible for someone to make a mistake and release information without going through the proper vetting process. There are many examples of military officials failing to go through the proper procedure -- even if they had been trained to follow said procedure -- and, by doing so, causing erroneous information to be released. This is most likely a similar mistake.
The conspiracy theorist analogue to the aforementioned logic is the idea among 9/11 truthers that errors and inconsistencies such as the official report printing an incorrect time for Flight 11's impact into the North Tower aren't just simple errors -- they're evidence of some kind of vast, byzantine conspiracy.
The other issue is a logical contradiction. You seem to be insinuating that the Navy is simultaneously against the F-35, and thus wants to release information suggesting that they don't want to buy the aircraft, and supportive of the aircraft, and thus doesn't want to release information that may scare away potential buyers.
Again, you might want to elucidate your position and remove any logical kinks contained therein. If you don't, some viewers may accuse you of conducting sloppy research and/or making false assumptions.
"the Navy never planned to buy more of those planes."
DeleteOf course that is arguable, but let's talk about the verb "planned."
I know how these things work. It may have been in one of those mandatory, god-awful meetings when people who could actually be doing something have to sit around the wall and listen to some mid-level bureaucrats sitting at a long table mouth off about this and that.
In the meeting I have in mind, one of those GS-15s or Captains at the table said: "We ought to buy some more eff-eighteens." Maybe he's heard the CNO pine over the matter, or maybe he dreamed it up, whatever. Then somebody in procurement, in the back, someone who was awake and actually taking notes, in hopes of advancement, ran with it and put out the pre-solicitation. He knew enough to know that it was the right thing to do because the JSF is a turkey.. And what harm could be done?
So much for "planned." So much for your nutty theories about conspiracies and insinuations. Go elucidate somewhere else. Personally, I think you're a Pentagon sock puppet.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit
DeleteThe point of the conspiracy theorist analogue was to provide an example of an erroneous use of the same kind of logic Solomon used to posit that the Navy was definitely "sending out feelers" to buy more Super Hornets/Growlers. It provides a good backdrop.
DeleteAlso, you're confusing the subject of my statement. I was saying that *Solomon* should elucidate his statement to remove any logical kinks, lest others accuse him of making faulty statements. I was not "elucidating" anything, inasmuch as I was simply pointing something out.
As for my super-secret Pentagon sock puppet identity... I wish. I'm a pre-med student, thank you for asking.
Btw. it's a photoshop pic.
ReplyDeleteexcellent thread on the UCAS
ReplyDeletehttp://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-15075.html
Another more recent excellent thread on X-47B:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-20468.html