I've been closely monitoring vids put out by Lockheed Martin waiting patiently for the trap test vids to come out.
Wait, no, they call it roll in tests.
Still. Haven't seen it, only one photo.
What gives? If they were so darn successful why haven't we seen one? They release every and anything else.
My belief and I have nothing to base this on, is that the results were sketchy. I'll believe the plane is ready to go to the boat when it goes to the boat. Until then its all propaganda.
Notice emptier than usual press releases and items show up in the F-35 fanzines right before budget times or negative progress reports.
ReplyDeleteWell, as of right now there is no additional funding for Super Hornets on the proposed 2015 budget. Boeing is launching a last ditch effort to get funding for the Super Hornet from Congress and this looks to be their last chance. March 4 is when the fights over and we find out who won.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/14/boeing-fighter-idUSL2N0LI2BP20140214
OSD will not allow the Navy to request more Super Hornet / Growlers. The F/A-18 advanced procurement inserted into the FY14 budget was done by Congress, so it follows that Congress will have to do the same with production funding in the FY15 budget. The fate of USN SH/Growlers may not be clear until December when the FY15 NDAA is finalized.
DeleteVideo: Joint Strike Fighter Roundtable: What Do Pilots Who Are Flying It Today Have to Say? 12 Feb 2014
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dvidshub.net/video/321590/joint-strike-fighter-roundtable-do-pilots-who-flying-today-have-say
"Joint Strike Fighter Roundtable: What Do Pilots Who Are Flying It Today Have to Say? at the WEST 2014 Conference. Moderator: Mr. Ward Carroll, Editor-in-Chief, Military.com Panelists: - LCDR Michael Burks, Senior Navy Test Pilot for F-35 - CDR Frederick Crecelius, Commanding Officer, VFA-101 - William Gigliotti, F-35 Lighting II, FW Site/Production Lead Test Pilot Lockheed Martin Corporation - LtCol Steve Gillette, Commander Officer, VMFA-121. (1hr)"
Audio Excerpt (from talking heads video above) about the hook situation:
5Mb .WMA audio file: http://tinyurl.com/nygtz8d
FUCK WHAT A BUNCH OF WINGERS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THEIR LATEST TOY! i have some guys that can look at the film and tell me whats what.
Deleteless talk, more proof otherwise its just fucking propaganda. they've lied before and will again to save this program.
Funny. All the pilots. Find one that was part of a test program and stated that a aircraft sucked. They would be fired. LOL.
DeleteOne of the premises of the panel was that reports of deficiencies of the F-35 were overblown. (The panel was moderated by the editor-in-chief of Military.com, which receives advertising dollars from guess who?) When the military pilots were asked what deficiencies were overblown, they did not specifically identify any "overblown" issues. They did talk about the HMS, and basically said there is more work that needs to be done, that it wasn't there yet, but felt that problems with it would be corrected eventually. The tail hook issue was two fold, and one of the folds was previously under-reported (not disclosed?) which was the structural issue with the hook attach points to a bulkhead. That redesign added 139lbs to the aircraft. The LM test pilot suggested that the program has been open about issues with the aircraft, which certainly doesn't pass the Pinnochio test.
DeleteHere's an image of the CV tailhook system, prior to its considerable weight gain which could cause other problems in the airframe and/or performance. We don't know what was done, because it's been covered up.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteInteresting to see the "lies" are now on Youtube:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxe4Jv1cJxI
I wonder how the US aircraft are ever developed with so many liars doing the testing. I guess flight test engineers do not lie neither do they fly. Such a relief. How does DOTE get their information - from the liars or from a trusted source. Who is that?
Anyway ELP never lies as we know so we are all safe.
You can bet your booties that if Lockheed had solved this significant problem after two and a half years there would be trumpeting from the roof-tops and we'd be knee-deep in photos and announcements from the JPO.
DeleteSo instead we have a youtibe video of a pilots panel discussion which was then sent around to the fanboys.
Move along -- nothing to see here.
As for the tail hook tests, the roll-in tests at Lakehurst were 100% successful at grabbing the wire. The five fly-in tests at Pax were also successful, although the Navy test pilot in the video said that they were a very small sample, and they were not prepared to declare the issue solved.
ReplyDeleteWhere's that grain of salt . . .here it is. I'll take it.
DeleteF-35C tailhook coverup
ReplyDeleteThere has been a coverup in the F-35C program.
The F-35C, the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, has an inherent design problem. The plane's arresting gear, which is required to grab a carrier's arresting cable upon landing, because of the plane's design is too far forward. The upswept F-35C fuselage has forced the "tailhook" some half the distance forward to the landing wheels compared to other carrier-qualified aircraft, converting it to more of a bellyhook. When the plane hits the deck the wheels distort the cable, which doesn't have time to recover before the hook hits the cable, thus resulting in aborted attempts.
The F-35 Quick Look Review back in November 2011 first reported the tailhook problem. "There are significant issues with respect to how the CV (carrier variant) AHS (arresting hook system) interoperates with aircraft carrier based MK-7 arresting gear. Rollin arrestment testing at NAWC-AD, Lakehurst, resulted in no successful MK-7 engagements (0 successes in 8 attempts). problems: -aircraft geometry, hook design and ineffective damper. 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."
In January 2012 the F-35 prime contractor Lockheed said: "The good news is that it's fairly straight forward and isolated to the hook itself," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed program manager for the F-35 program. "It doesn't have secondary effects going into the rest of the airplane."
That was two years ago, this is now. The arresting gear still doesn't work. After twelve years of development the F-35 carrier variant hasn't been able to go near a carrier, and there's no indication that it will have the ability to land on a carrier any time soon. There's no "good news." In fact, there's almost no news at all.
The F-35C tailhook problem continues, now with a significant coverup. The initial 2011 diagnosis of a problem isolated to the hook itself was expanded to include the damper, requiring merely a hook redesign and a damper adjustment. Then in 2012 a much more significant structural problem was found. testing revealed higher than predicted loads, impacting the upper portion of the arresting hook system, referred to as the “Y frame,” where loads are translated from the hook point to the aircraft) and hold down damper. So much for "no secondary effects."
ReplyDeleteNow in 2014 after a significant, ongoing F-35C delay we get the DOT&E report and it doesn't mention any structural load problem leading to a significant F-35C redesign. The report doesn't mention the “Y frame." But the report does say, without explanation, that there has been an F-35C weight gain of 139 pounds. "The program added 139 pounds to the F-35C weight status in May 2013 to account for the redesigned arresting hook system." That's a significant weight increase on a plane where weight is critical and performance requirements have been reduced because the heaviest variant F-35C at 34,593 pounds already weighs too much. It strongly implies major structural changes in an attempt to correct a serious stress failure(s).
The Quick Look Review back in November 2011 was prescient. "With corrective action still in development, the AHS is considered an area of major consequence. If the proposed redesigned components do not prove to be compatible with MK-7 arresting gear, then significant redesign impacts will ensue." Significant design impacts would effect (and already are affecting) the planned buys, 260 for Navy and 80 for the Marine Corps.
Politico has recently reported that the Navy asked to take a three-year “break” from its procurement of the F-35C. That's logical. The Navy shouldn't have to procure non-performing planes at such high cost, $200 million plus each, beyond what is required for development until performance is acceptable and there is a Milestone C production decision. Office Secretary of Defense (OSD) reportedly turned down the "break" request, because nothing is permitted to interfere with the mistaken-ridden, behind schedule and over budget F-35 program.
Meanwhile, we haven't been given the facts on the serious F-35C tailhook situation. It's been covered up, as with other aspects of the program. It's just what Navy doesn't need, another tailhook scandal.
I am pretty sure we will get all kinds of great news about how the latest results of the tail hook works once the Super Hornet production line is for certain to be closed and done with production orders, LMT will be so happy to tell us we have nothing to worry about....then on a real boring Friday night, we'll get some small PR release from LMT saying they need more time and problem isn't quite solved yet....
ReplyDelete