TaiidanTomcat Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Ok Top Gun fans Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 This is a question, not a criticism: In the above video there seems to be a lot of "pogo-ing" of the nose during the cat launches, as if the nose strut is under-damped. In a couple of shots it looks like the pilot is actually bouncing up and down in the seat (around the 3:55 mark). Is this "pogo effect" a problem or is it considered normal? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fellow Hobbyist Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 I think that's a normal occurrence in carrier planes getting launched. If you go to time index 2:00 you will catch the Super Hornet catapult off the deck of the carrier. As this begins you will note the nose of the jet oscillate much the same as the F-35C in Taiidan's video. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
82Whitey51 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Warm fuel is an issue? Better not deploy to the desert...or cruise in the Indian Ocean...or be stationed in Arizona, Florida, California or...c'mon man! http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-run-on-warm-gas-from-a-fuel-truck-that-sa-1668120726 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fellow Hobbyist Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) If the integrated power pack can provides cooling while the F-35 is operating on the ground...is this really an serious issue? Edited December 9, 2014 by Fellow Hobbyist Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spejic Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 If the integrated power pack can provides cooling while the F-35 is operating on the ground...is this really an serious issue? The problem is that the fuel provides cooling for the internal electric systems, including the power pack. If you can't stick the heat in the fuel, the only other place you can put it is outside, which means adding vents or other external structures. That affect stealth and weight and complexity. And I'm guessing the internals of the aircraft are pretty packed right now - where are they going to find room for a radiator and everything that goes with it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Waco Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) The F-22 WAS intentionally designed to not talk with other aircraft, at least in a bi-directional sense. It just recently has had LINK-16 transmit added to the fleet, as before it was receive only. Not correct. The F-22 is still receive-only on Link-16, and any planned Link-16 transmit upgrades are still several years down the road. There are several 5th-to-4th Gen communication workarounds proposed: Project Missouri TALON HATE BACN IFDL Subsystem (BIS) Multi-Domain Integration (MDI)....because who doesn't like bacon? None of these are fully funded or operational, and all would require significant budgetary investment. They've all proven workable, with varying degrees of limitations. Warm fuel is an issue? Better not deploy to the desert...or cruise in the Indian Ocean...or be stationed in Arizona, Florida, California or...c'mon man! http://foxtrotalpha....t-sa-1668120726 Terrible article, written by a defense blogger who repackages other articles and makes them significantly longer with his own added commentary/opinions. This is not a new problem. B-1, F-22, and numerous other aircraft use fuel cooling for mission critical avionics. On the ground, at idle power, and with minimal airflow over things like air-cooled fuel coolers, heat exchangers, and ram-air systems, the ability to remove excess heat from the aircraft becomes a significant challenge. In the air, excess heat is easily removed by burning the hot fuel in the engine section (duh) or by the lower outside air temps and improved heat transfer of these cooling systems mentioned previously. The same problem occurred in early stages in the F-22. According to other articles, it still occurs in the B-1, requiring certain systems to be delayed for turn on until the aircraft is airborne with sufficient cooling airflow available. In the F-22, software changes to the ECS logic allowed for various changes to the thermal management system on the ground, maximizing the efficiency of available cooling for the mission avionics. By the way, having seen this type of issue, first hand...even though it gets a lot of attention (and hand wringing articles), it turns out to not be an issue for most day-to-day missions except in a handful of extreme temps in extreme operating environments. For most of the year, unless you were doing extended ground operations or had gotten to a very low fuel state, it was a non-issue. I stress: not a new problem. In short, this is a problem that will be easily corrected with software changes and modifications to operational practices. Those will be integrated as further software blocks are fielded. Additionally, operational improvements (like the sun shades mentioned in the primary source Air Force article) will be added to F-35 operating locations. In the meantime, hats off to the maintainers for an ingenious, quick fix solution to "get the job done." Like all good maintainers, they came up with a rapid, easy solution that allows operations to continue while permanent fixes are implemented. In short: not a big deal; we've seen this before. Edited December 9, 2014 by Waco Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Not correct. The F-22 is still receive-only on Link-16, and any planned Link-16 transmit upgrades are still several years down the road. There are several 5th-to-4th Gen communication workarounds proposed: Project Missouri TALON HATE BACN IFDL Subsystem (BIS) Multi-Domain Integration (MDI)....because who doesn't like bacon? None of these are fully funded or operational, and all would require significant budgetary investment. They've all proven workable, with varying degrees of limitations. Terrible article, written by a defense blogger who repackages other articles and makes them significantly longer with his own added commentary/opinions. This is not a new problem. B-1, F-22, and numerous other aircraft use fuel cooling for mission critical avionics. On the ground, at idle power, and with minimal airflow over things like air-cooled fuel coolers, heat exchangers, and ram-air systems, the ability to remove excess heat from the aircraft becomes a significant challenge. In the air, excess heat is easily removed by burning the hot fuel in the engine section (duh) or by the lower outside air temps and improved heat transfer of these cooling systems mentioned previously. The same problem occurred in early stages in the F-22. According to other articles, it still occurs in the B-1, requiring certain systems to be delayed for turn on until the aircraft is airborne with sufficient cooling airflow available. In the F-22, software changes to the ECS logic allowed for various changes to the thermal management system on the ground, maximizing the efficiency of available cooling for the mission avionics. By the way, having seen this type of issue, first hand...even though it gets a lot of attention (and hand wringing articles), it turns out to not be an issue for most day-to-day missions except in a handful of extreme temps in extreme operating environments. For most of the year, unless you were doing extended ground operations or had gotten to a very low fuel state, it was a non-issue. I stress: not a new problem. In short, this is a problem that will be easily corrected with software changes and modifications to operational practices. Those will be integrated as further software blocks are fielded. Additionally, operational improvements (like the sun shades mentioned in the primary source Air Force article) will be added to F-35 operating locations. In the meantime, hats off to the maintainers for an ingenious, quick fix solution to "get the job done." Like all good maintainers, they came up with a rapid, easy solution that allows operations to continue while permanent fixes are implemented. In short: not a big deal; we've seen this before. Thank you You can add the harrier to the list of aircraft that need fuel at a certain temp, along with Water in a built in tank to keep things cool. I didn't know that about the B-1. Unfortunately for the Marines they don't know about things like tents, improvisation, decades of combat deployment with Harriers, and are stuck in freezing place like Yuma Arizona so they won't know what to do when its time to go to the desert. Save the endangered Jarhead! Edited December 9, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted December 9, 2014 Author Share Posted December 9, 2014 Not correct. The F-22 is still receive-only on Link-16, and any planned Link-16 transmit upgrades are still several years down the road. There are several 5th-to-4th Gen communication workarounds proposed: My apologies. I could have sworn LM said "They had it" when I last looked at Incs 3.1-3.3. Oh well, 3.1-3.2b are funded and underway, so I'm sure it's as good as gold. BACN IFDL Subsystem (BIS) Multi-Domain Integration (MDI)....because who doesn't like bacon? None of these are fully funded or operational, and all would require significant budgetary investment. They've all proven workable, with varying degrees of limitations. Que? BACN looks pretty damn operational, judging from the number of perfectly good BD-700s (ahem, I mean E-11As) and Block 20 GHs are carrying it. Granted they only seem to have shoestring budget on a year to year basis, but they were and are certainly flying operational mission in Afghanistan. Heck, if we go with funding and love, the A-10 isn't operational by that definiton. Terrible article...In short: not a big deal; we've seen this before. Concur. Keep in mind though the F-22 problem and solution are not really the same as the F-35 problem and solution. While the inputs and outputs are essentially the same (hot fuel = bad), the F-35 has some other tools avaialble to mitigate the problem that the F-22 doesn't have. To be expected, be a slightly newer aircraft. At least nobody is talking fuel chillers anymore. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) From the Author: You may feel just at home with this sort of nonsense and after writing well over 200 pieces on this program I am insulted when you say myself and others probably have no idea what we are talking about. Hes an expert kids, look at his articles. I'm enraged the AF came up with a such a quick and cheap solution to keep them flying. My last hope is that the paint cost $30,000 a gallon and needed several coats. Edited December 9, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 From the Author: You may feel just at home with this sort of nonsense and after writing well over 200 pieces on this program I am insulted when you say myself and others probably have no idea what we are talking about. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted December 9, 2014 Author Share Posted December 9, 2014 Even at $30,000 a gallon, it's a bargain to paint the trucks vs fix the jets! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Lost it I would have responded in that comment thread, but you have to sign up via social network and let it have all your info. No thanks, jeff. Not about to give you all that access to reward trolling. Did remind me of this though: "I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target." http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/navy-seal-copypasta Edited December 9, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-run-on-warm-gas-from-a-fuel-truck-that-sa-1668120726 FTA: Clearly it is not tactical in any way to be driving a giant white potential fuel-bomb around a battle zone Right, because as we all know, dark green is such great camouflage in the desert. September 2012 Camp Bastion raid - two Marines killed, six Harriers destroyed, two more damaged and a USAF C-130 destroyed by 19 Taliban dressed in Army uniforms. But hey, at least they didn't get the fuel trucks! Gawker should rename "Foxtrot Alpha" to "Whiskey Delta." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 As someone who has played over 500 hours in first-person shooters I can tell you that Green does not blend into the desert at all Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 As someone who has access to teh Pantones, i can say that you might be right. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChernayaAkula Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 As someone who has played over 500 hours in first-person shooters I can tell you that Green does not blend into the desert at all As someone who has played over 500 hours in first-person shooters, you ought to know that the green colour isn't applied for camouflage, it's to make barrels insensitive to bullet strikes or explosions. Everybody knows it's the red ones you gotta watch out for. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 As someone who's had at least 500 drinks, I can tell you that both "liquor before beer, in the clear" and "beer before liquor, never been sicker" are absolutely true. #NeverForget Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 http://www.cnbc.com/id/102253195 Clarifying an earlier story posted on CNBC, a spokesman for the base said that in a proactive measure to offset future potential problems, crews decided to repaint some fuel trucks with white reflective paint to deflect heat and keep the fuel cooler inside."Every jet has a threshold," said Major Matt Hasson of Luke AFB public affairs, though no one can provide CNBC with an exact temperature for the F-35. So far, however, "The jets are performing phenomenally...there's no problem." "This is not an F-35 issue; there are no special restrictions on the F-35 related to fuel temperature. The F-35 uses the same fuel as other military aircraft. It can fly under the same temperature conditions as any other advanced military aircraft," the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office told CNBC. So why repaint the trucks? Maj. Hasson said the base wants to get ahead of any potential issues as its fleet of F-35s expands from a handful to a total of 144. Luke AFB is one of seven bases testing the F-35 and beginning pilot training. Fuel trucks at Luke sit near runways and do not have any shade from the sun. Repainting trucks for $3,900 each is a relatively cheap solution. hopefully this whole fiasco will teach the troops not to take the initiative or think ahead to preempt potential problems. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 The Office of Naval Research (ONR) today received one of the nation's top manufacturing awards for an innovative, cost-saving method for making advanced cockpit enclosures, or canopies, for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter program.Officials from ONR's Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) program accepted the Department of Defense's Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Achievement Award at the Defense Manufacturing Conference in San Antonio. The Department of Defense's Joint Strike Fighter program is developing the next generation of affordable, lethal strike aircraft in variants for the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. The automated process will be used to make canopies—the transparent shells around the cockpits—for more than 2,000 aircraft, saving as much as $125 million over the life of the F-35 program. ONR ManTech led a team of military and industry scientists and engineers in automating the thermoforming process used to create F-35 canopies, saving time and money and eliminating potential hazards for human work crews. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-12-f-onr-award.html#jCp Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Waco Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) My apologies. I could have sworn LM said "They had it" when I last looked at Incs 3.1-3.3. Oh well, 3.1-3.2b are funded and underway, so I'm sure it's as good as gold. Sure, but none of that gets you to Link-16 transmit capability. *shrug* Que? BACN looks pretty damn operational... Our adventures in various colors of tan over the last 13 years have allowed us to experiment with a wide range of systems and capabilities that are not technically "operational," but were pushed into the field to meet a JUON or other high priority requirement. And "BACN" is a little bit like saying, "Datalink." BACN can take so many different flavors and capabilities depending on the hardware/software configuration provided, so it's difficult to pin it down to a specific capability set. The BIS-MDI version (an acronym of acronyms....BACN IFDL Subsystem-Mult-Domain Integration), however, is not an operationally fielded system. And it's the one that provides a 5th-to-4th gateway for the F-22. So...like all these others, proven capability, but not operationally fielded. Keep in mind though the F-22 problem and solution are not really the same as the F-35 problem and solution. While the inputs and outputs are essentially the same (hot fuel = bad), the F-35 has some other tools avaialble to mitigate the problem that the F-22 doesn't have. Well aware of the differences, but intentionally kept it generic and tailored it to the system which has a fielded solution to the problem. In the end though, it's the same issue: fuel used to cool the mission avionics tends to overheat without a sufficient means to burn the hot fuel off or cool the fuel when operating at idle power and zero airspeed during extended ground operations. That was my only point. hopefully this whole fiasco will teach the troops not to take the initiative or think ahead to preempt potential problems. Considering the individuals who applied a relatively ingenious, quick fix to preemptively ensure operations were not affected by high temperatures are now being castigated in the media and blogosphere...yeah, it pretty much sucks all around. Again, I say, way to go maintainers. You can always count on these guys to find some way to get the job done when it absolutely must be successful. And we've definitely hit the point where the F-35 MUST be successful. http://phys.org/news/2014-12-f-onr-award.html#jCp Whaaaaaaaat? Touting success? Don't you know this thread is exclusively for bashing the F-35? Well, that and talking about how teh awesome A-10s are. Edited December 10, 2014 by Waco Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Cartwright Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 OK then, back to the F-35 bashing, this time by the Chinese. Chinese Official: J-31 Stealth Fighter Could ‘Definitely Take Down’ F-35 http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinese-official-j-31-stealth-fighter-could-definitely-take-11829 Appearing on China’s state broadcaster on Tuesday, Lin Zuoming, president of Aviation Industry Corp of China (Avic), the state-owned Chinese defense company that manufactures the J-31, boldly declared that “When it [the J-31] takes to the sky, it could definitely take down the F-35. It's a certainty.” Well put a fork in 'er, she's done for. Wish he would have said this sooner so we could have saved a lot of money. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Chinese Official: J-31 Stealth Fighter Could ‘Definitely Take Down’ F-35 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) Right, because as we all know, dark green is such great camouflage in the desert. What fuel truck!? I never even saw it! very blend, such tactical, wow. http://pogoblog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c68bf53ef016760a56671970b-pi Because someone painted... Edited December 11, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.