Jump to content

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Alvis 3.1 said:

What's the lifespan left in the legacy Hornets from the USN and the RAAF this story suggests? I would think they'd be similar to the existing RCAF planes. Wasn't there some coming up from Kuwait that had a better lifespan left on the airframes?

 

Alvis 3.1

 

I bet the Kuwaitis are in the best shape. RAAF may be OK too though. This is assuming "overages" either in RCAF schedule or the sudden "need" brought in by the new government. The Marines are looking at replacing Hornets first over harriers which is a reversal from the plan a few years back. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, VA-115EFR said:

For the USN and the USMC, I would think the timeless cats and traps the Hornets endure on carriers would put hella stress on the airframes, which would shorten the lifespan compared to the RAAF and RCAF aircraft.

 

 

It depends. The Navy at one point was taking USMC Hornets that were higher overall time, yet not "cat and trapped" out a few years ago. So it depends. You might get a lower hours airframe, but one that was mothballed earlier by the USN with regular airframe life still left. When the USN started going super hornet they were telling Miramar HQ "You have about 60+ spare hornet frames now-- more than you could crash in a lifeftime" Marines have been accepting the challenge though

 

So I think its possible. if you are searching for a dozen or so Hornets that meet Canada's needs you can find the "best" 15 and will be ok. And even pulling them and refurbing them will be faster and cheaper than starting from scratch with super hornets. because there is about zero parts commonality at this point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

I bet the Kuwaitis are in the best shape. RAAF may be OK too though. This is assuming "overages" either in RCAF schedule or the sudden "need" brought in by the new government. The Marines are looking at replacing Hornets first over harriers which is a reversal from the plan a few years back. 

 

No chance with the RAAF aircraft. None will be released until the entire fleet has been taken out of service. Even if they were, the first ones to go would be those that are flogged to death, with the ones that have had full refurb and CBR released last. And the first releases would still not be before the Canadians needed them for whatever spare parts they could glean.

 

(Used F-18, only driven to church on Sundays by a little old granny.  Every part just as new.  Like this bridge I also have for sale)

 

For what it's worth, the first two RAAF F-35s to arrive in Australia landed at RAAF Amberley at about 5pm last Sunday. They're here for the airshow at Avalon and I'm uncertain but probably going right back again until at least the next tranche start delivery in 2018.
FWIW our first two EF-18G arrived a week or so back; all 12 have now been completed and six handed over in the USA - all should be at Amberley by the end of the year.

 

Shane

Edited by sweier
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, sweier said:

 

No chance with the RAAF aircraft. None will be released until the entire fleet has been taken out of service. Even if they were, the first ones to go would be those that are flogged to death, with the ones that have had full refurb and CBR released last. And the first releases would still not be before the Canadians needed them for whatever spare parts they could glean.

 

(Used F-18, only driven to church on Sundays by a little old granny.  Every part just as new.  Like this bridge I also have for sale)

 

For what it's worth, the first two RAAF F-35s to arrive in Australia landed at RAAF Amberley at about 5pm last Sunday. They're here for the airshow at Avalon and I'm uncertain but probably going right back again until at least the next tranche start delivery in 2018.
FWIW our first two EF-18G arrived a week or so back; all 12 have now been completed and six handed over in the USA - all should be at Amberley by the end of the year.

 

Shane

 Thank's for the info, mate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

 

Quote

 

That move, along with the push by the Liberals to have the first of the interim Super Hornet fighter aircraft delivered by that year, could help blunt criticism about bungled military procurements and delays in buying a new jet, say military insiders and analysts.

Public Services and Procurement Canada confirmed the 2019 date for the release to industry of the request for proposals for the permanent fighter fleet.

The department also noted the government expects a deal in place by the end of 2017 or early 2018 to acquire the 18 Boeing Super Hornets as an interim measure. The Liberal government has been pushing to get the first of those planes delivered some time in 2019, industry sources say.

 

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/buying-political-insulation-liberals-to-call-for-bids-in-2019-for-permanent-fleet-to-replace-cf-18s

 

 

2019? you know when Canada was going to receive its first F-35s?

 

Im here for the Bang Bang

 

3E13FF6200000578-4294406-The_GAU_22_gatl

 

 

F-35 Dominates At Red Flag With 15:1 Kill Rate

Feb 6, 2017Lara Seligman | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
f35a-red-flag-january-2016.jpg
F-35A at Red Flag in January: USAF

The U.S. Air Force’s F-35A made its debut at the toughest Red Flag yet, and not only dominated the air space but made the legacy aircraft in the force package even deadlier, according to pilots. The F-35’s participation in the Air Force’s capstone training event at Nellis AFB, Nevada, which is known as one of the world’s most realistic and challenging air-to-air combat exercises, marked a crucial test for the fifth-generation fighter. This year, pilots went up ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting rumors/speculation..

http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/2017/03/07/have-israels-new-f-35s-seen-combat/

 

Quote

According to a French journalist, Israel’s newly received F-35A Adir stealth fighters have already seen combat. Reportedly, a first air strike was flown against targets in Syria in January – less than a month after the jets first touched down in Israel.

Georges Malbrunot, who writes for French newspaper Le Figaro, cited French intelligence sources. He posted on Twitter today that examples of the Israeli F-35 – two of which have been delivered to the country to date – took part in a raid over Syrian territory on the night of January 12-13. The mission saw them strike objectives around the capital, Damascus.

According to Malbrunot, the F-35s targeted warehouses containing Russian-made Pantsir-S1 mobile surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems that Israel feared could be delivered from Syria to Hezbollah forces operating in Lebanon. The warehouse was located at Mezzeh, a military airfield in Damascus.

During the same attack, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) also reportedly destroyed an S-300 SAM battery deployed near the Syrian presidential palace, on Mount Qassioun. According to the same unnamed French intelligence source quoted by Malbrunot, the F-35 aircraft finally overflew the palace of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, before returning to Israel.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MarkW said:

Would this remotely surprise anyone?

 

Are you kidding? I'm utterly shocked. This thing is a turkey that will never work in a trillion dollars and 100 years. Tyler Rogoaway told me all about it sucking, and the (now former) pentagon's "Top weapons testor" has repeatedly told us year after year its not ready. This is before we even get to Bill Sweetman, and Giovini de briganti who also tell us it will never work.

 

I'm Shocked. I'm Literally shaking right now. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But wait...  before you sign the paperwork on that brand new F-35, someone is having a blowout sale:

 

http://host.madison.com/business/investment/markets-and-stocks/lockheed-beware-boeing-gives-navy-a-cut-price-deal-on/article_db99d2db-f8a8-5337-b02c-9ca03fe9497f.html

 

If you can hold off a bit longer, you might be able to get a BOGO!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Minor problem (unless your are one of the pilots in pain) encountered when launching the C-model from a carrier.    

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-footage-problem-delaying-navy-f-35-2017-1

 

I wonder if it's possible to fit some sort of pad between the back of the pilot's helmet and the seat headrest to keep the poor guy's head from moving as much?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 11bee said:

Minor problem (unless your are one of the pilots in pain) encountered when launching the C-model from a carrier.    

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-footage-problem-delaying-navy-f-35-2017-1

 

I wonder if it's possible to fit some sort of pad between the back of the pilot's helmet and the seat headrest to keep the poor guy's head from moving as much?

 

 

 

In classic reporter fashion, the problem is missed, thus not explained. The prices inflated the theatrical highlighted-- and click bait is born.

 

Basically when the f-35 shoots off the cat lightly loaded there is excessive force. Mods are already on the way, and its not really an issue unless the F-35 is taking off with minimal of fuel. The Issue is light shots like that are common so the Navy can practice its carrier landings. everything from changing how people are strapped in to the hold back bar is being investigated:

 

And the helmet doesn't cost 400,000 dollars. Thats your standard repeating a lie reporting. The Helmet and the COMPUTER it hooks into are $400,000. and JHMCS helmet is $65,000.

 

And since the "reporter" mentioned the Hornet, I have to add the Super Hornet had the same issues with its CVN tests.

 

So Just your standard issue click-bait ignorant fake news by people who are too lazy to actually research, and wont give you any background or context or history. Its almost like the whole point is to manipulate via concocted and biased narratives.

 

Quote

Some pilots locked down their harnesses to avoid jostling around during the launch, but this makes it more difficult for the pilot to eject, should they need to.

 

Thats an interesting sentence that was repeated by several new organizations. Wondering who patient zero is on that one

 

 

Quote

The Navy has informed the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) that it considers this problem a “must fix” deficiency.
The problem occurs primarily because the mechanism in the nose gear is not “damping out” the oscillations from the cable release quickly enough, JPO Chief Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan told reporters during a December round table.

“The first thing that happens when those Navy seamen hook the airplane up is they hook the nose gear up to a latching mechanism, and then they pull down and the airplane kind of noses down, all that tension is being held,” Bogdan said. “Then boom! When the cable releases and you start going down the deck, because the airplane has been held down like that the airplane [bounces], and that’s primarily because the mechanism in the nose gear is not damping out the oscillations enough or quick enough.”

Bogdan downplayed the problem, saying the oscillations only occur at very light gross takeoff weights. “At medium weights and heavy weights you don’t see this problem at all,” Bogdan said. “If an F-35C is going to combat it is not going to take off lightweight. It’s going to take off with everything it needs to go to combat, so you won’t see that problem.”

The Pentagon is currently investigating the best way to fix the problem. One option is to redesign the nose gear, a potentially expensive and time-consuming solution. A long-term mechanical fix is “probably a couple of years off,” so in the meantime the JPO is looking at operational solutions like changing the way a pilot holds on during takeoff, Bogdan said."

 

So first things first, see if they can fix tit by tinkering with what they have. second stop is engineering and redesigns etc

 

 

 

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

So first things first, see if they can fix tit by tinkering with what they have. second stop is engineering and redesigns etc

 

It's good that this is a minor issue.  Still a bit disconcerting to see the visor come off the pilot's helmet during one of those launches.   Doesn't the visor provide the primary flight instruments for the pilot, in lieu of a HUD?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

While losing the visor is certainly less than optimal, I don't think it immediately threatens the overall health and safety of the pilot, and because of the nature of the problem, I think there's a good chance that it will have a fairly simple solution.

 

What gets me about articles about the F-35 is that it seems any issue is portrayed as another example of what a terrible plane it is, yet other more significant issues in other planes, like the oxygen issues in the F-18s, that can directly affect a pilot's health and safety, don't seem to get the same level criticism.  I read an article about it today, but the focus seemed to be more on Trump's support of the plane than the issue itself.  Makes me wonder if the article would have even been written if there wasn't a "Trump connection."

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, 11bee said:

It's good that this is a minor issue.  Still a bit disconcerting to see the visor come off the pilot's helmet during one of those launches.   Doesn't the visor provide the primary flight instruments for the pilot, in lieu of a HUD?

 

 

Yup. The visor is the primary display for those guys. I would be a little concerned about that. On our hmcs helmets they just pop into place. Not that big of a deal on the ground but I wouldn't want to be screwing with it while trying to gain altitude and airspeed. Not sure how the JSF helmet visor is attached. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 11bee said:

It's good that this is a minor issue.  Still a bit disconcerting to see the visor come off the pilot's helmet during one of those launches.   Doesn't the visor provide the primary flight instruments for the pilot, in lieu of a HUD?

 

 

 

 Even if the HUD went out on the regular aircraft the pilot still has the instruments within the cockpit on the instrument panel. In this case it would be the screen. 

 

The purpose of testing it to test and find these things out. Naval aviation is unique to say the least. Not even the Super Hornet got it right the first, and the original hornet was really bad. 

 

14 hours ago, Ken Cartwright said:

While losing the visor is certainly less than optimal, I don't think it immediately threatens the overall health and safety of the pilot, and because of the nature of the problem, I think there's a good chance that it will have a fairly simple solution.

 

What gets me about articles about the F-35 is that it seems any issue is portrayed as another example of what a terrible plane it is, yet other more significant issues in other planes, like the oxygen issues in the F-18s, that can directly affect a pilot's health and safety, don't seem to get the same level criticism.  I read an article about it today, but the focus seemed to be more on Trump's support of the plane than the issue itself.  Makes me wonder if the article would have even been written if there wasn't a "Trump connection."

 

Tale as old as time:

 

Quote

 

For instance, remember all the stories about how the military was buying toilet seats for $600, and $17 bolts? Neither happened. I checked a lot of those tales as a military writer. They generally amounted to fabrication. The Pentagon has all manner of ways to waste money, but bolts and toilet seats aren't among them.

I'll tell you how the lying is done. The details and numbers won't be right, or even real close, because I'm remembering from years back, but you'll get the point.

The Navy ages ago bought an airplane called the A-3 that looked like a black-eyed pea with wings and was supposed to chunk atomic bombs on the Russians. (You've heard the Navy's recipe for Chicken Kiev? Heat the city to four million degrees and throw in a chicken.) The A-3 had a design life of twenty years. Crashing daily on a carrier ages a plane. (The Navy calls it "landing." I've seen it done, and I say it's crashing.)

Anyway, the A-3, like most airplanes, had a number of nonstandard parts. One was an odd bolt for the nose gear. The Navy bought enough bolts for twenty years. Then Congress decided to extend the service life of the A-3 by several years. The Navy, now about out of bolts, needed a few more.

There are two ways to get a few bolts. One is to go to a bulk-bolt shop and order 10,000. They'll cost a buck each, for a total bill of $10,000. You'll use 10 and toss the rest overboard. The other way is to get a machine shop to make ten bolts by hand. This is expensive. Those ten bolts might cost $170.

"NAVY BUYS SEVENTEEN-DOLLAR BOLTS!"

That's how the game is played. I could give many examples of no interest today, including the $600 toilet seat.

Is it technically lying? Maybe not.

But is it really? Yep.

Does it happen all the time?

You bet it does. And people figure out that they're being lied to.

 

 

 

http://www.fredoneverything.net/A3.shtml

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

 Even if the HUD went out on the regular aircraft the pilot still has the instruments within the cockpit on the instrument panel. In this case it would be the screen.  

That's all well and good but having the pilot's visor, which display's his primary flight info, suddenly detach from his helmet in the middle of a cat shot seems to be a recipe for bad things to happen.  I dunno, maybe I'm being a Nervous Nellie about this whole thing and it's really not a that big of a deal.   

 

 

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 11bee said:

That's all well and good but having the pilot's visor, which display's his primary flight info, suddenly detach from his helmet in the middle of a cat shot seems to be a recipe for bad things to happen.  I dunno, maybe I'm being a Nervous Nellie about this whole thing and it's really not a that big of a deal.   

 

 

 

Yes. I know. Anyone not saying this is the end of the world isn't taking it seriously enough. 

 

You're taking one incident and trying to make a big deal out of it when fixes are in the works and the program is well aware of the issues. If the visor coming off during a cat shot is the worst thing you think can happen with carrier aviation, it might be time to rethink the entire endeavor and I suggest you not look too deeply into other incidents (without your fainting couch anyway)

 

Let's go over this dance we have seen repeated so many times:

 

This is a problem!

 

Yes it's a problem but its fairly minor comparitively and problems happen during testing, that's why we test and a fix is in the works long before the media reports on things and inflates them for its own benefit

 

Oh I'm sorry I guess I just care a little bit more about this problem than you do you LM salesman you. 

 

And on and on it goes. In this case they basically got footage (media loves video!) And built an entire article around the guys visor coming off.

 

Yes the visor coming off is an issue, but it's not the end of the world as after the pilot gets passed the disorientation of that happening he can just use his secondary instruments which is why they are there. Which is why we build redundancy into the aircraft. 

 

ItS a slow news day I guess, and as far as test piloting goes wouldn't even be worthe noting compared to a lot of other experiences. 

 

Lastly i love how the public admires naval aviation for its unique and additional difficulty and the intrepid people who make it work, while conversely not being happy when that same difficulty and complexity doesn't work exactly right everytime. No where else do we shoot airplanes off in a couple seconds and crash land them over and over. People tend to only think of the landing, but the cat shot has its own unique issues and forces as we can see.

 

Navy: this stuff is hard

Public: wow! this stuff is hard

LM: this stuff is hard

JPO: this stuff is hard

Media:  Can't you get it right? It's so easy and simple. Here's 5 ways you can save on your car insurance

 

 

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 Yes the visor coming off is an issue, but it's not the end of the world as after the pilot gets passed the disorientation of that happening he can just use his secondary instruments which is why they are there. Which is why we build redundancy into the aircraft. 

 

Not sure I buy into that argument.  Having the pilot's visor (which provides his primary flight instruments) come off his helmet during a cat launch seems like a good way to end up flying into the water.   A non-issue at 30,000' in straight and level flight but 1 second into a cat shot? To me, it could end up being the end of the world (at least for the pilot) but I'll defer to your knowledge on this one.  

 

That being said, I have no doubt that they'll work through this and in the long run things will turn out ok (as the always do when you can throw unlimited money at a problem).   As Gordon mentioned above, I wonder if they couldn't come up with some sort of device to help keep the pilot's head somewhat secured to the headrest for those first few seconds?   I also have to wonder why this is an issue during launches but no one has mentioned any problems during arrested landings (or bolters for that matter) where I would think the forces on the pilot's head would be much more severe. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 11bee said:

Not sure I buy into that argument.  Having the pilot's visor (which provides his primary flight instruments) come off his helmet during a cat launch seems like a good way to end up flying into the water.  

 

 

 

glmRyiSI3v5E4.gif

 

 

The cat will shoot you off whether you can see the instruments or not. Pretty sure you can close your eyes through the entire event and the result is the same. 

 

 

On Hornets the pilots don't even touch the controls:

 

 

 

The airplane "flies itself" off the cat. Its pretty much a pass fail event, and the pilot doesn't tinker with anything until the jets off the deck... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still baffled as to how locking your shoulder harness makes it harder to eject.  Considering that's one of the steps in a controlled ejection scenario, prior to pulling the ejection handle.  And in an uncontrolled ejection scenario, the shoulder reels retract and lock, to help keep your body in the correct position.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

The cat will shoot you off whether you can see the instruments or not. Pretty sure you can close your eyes through the entire event and the result is the same. 

 

 

So it truly is a non-issue.  That's reassuring.  I guess if they can't figure out a way to fix the problem , maybe the pilot could just detach the visor before launch and hold it in his lap until safety airborne?

 

I had always assumed the visor was permanently secured to the helmet.  If it's only attached with some quick disconnect connections, what happens in the event of an ejection?  Is the visor detached during the ejection sequence or does it remain on the helmet?  I know that there were concerns over pilots ejecting with NVG's on and possibly suffering neck injuries, any issues with this helmet?

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to believe that even if this specific failure mode wasn't anticipated, the possibility of a visor failing in some way was.  I would bet that the basic flight instrument readings can be displayed on the console.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...