F 35B 1st Landing on USS WASP

[CWOJackson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7cAmCCmObw&feature=player_detailpage

[Wing_Z]

I thought I'd read that they were not going to use the Harrier crabwise approach... perhaps just for the trials, then.
Pity they edited the moment when it came into ground effect over deck, it's quite tricky to deal with, and I guess wasn't pretty enough for the clip.

[Railrunner130]

Call me crazy, but the B-model is the one variant I'd buy. Yes, the B-model version is on probation, but I think it's capabilities outweigh the time and $$ spent to get it right. I wouldn't mess with the A or C model. They all have their merits, but the B-model is where the action is. We won't always be fighting wars in the open desert and STOL will be needed at some point in the future of the F-35.

[CWOJackson]

Apparently one of the concerns is the extreme heat of the exhaust might cause soft spots on the deck.

[AndyG43]

Apparently one of the concerns is the extreme heat of the exhaust might cause soft spots on the deck.

And they have just realised this? It was one of the reasons the Hawker P1154 was cancelled back in the 60s, the potential for the hot exhaust to damage runways, let alone carrier decks; and the Royal Navy had similar problems operating the F-4K Phantom (because of the nose gear mod needed to operate from the smaller RN carriers), Ark Royal had to be equipped with water-cooled deflectors and blast plates - in fact 700P NAS did some carrier trials on the USS Saratoga, made quite a mess of the deck by all accounts.

Wing_Z, I suspect the Harrier-type approach in the video is part of the PR campaign to save the F-35B, which is definitely the weak link in the F-35 program. If they can prove the capability and uniqueness of the -B they may be able to save it; but the Lockheed Martin vp is on record as saying that most F-35B landings will be largely conventional (presumably he means shore-based landings, as it has no hook). It is in serious danger of cancellation, unless they can get the cost & performance issues sorted, and get it back nearer to schedule; in fact the UK Government has switched from the -B to the -C, for a variety of reasons including a lower lifetime cost.

The following is just my opinion, so don't all get hot under the collar. I think the whole JSF program was a case of ignoring the lessons from history, trying to design an aircraft to be all things to all men; the parallels with TFX are too big to be ignored. And once you get so many people around the table, all wanting their latest perceived needs to be included, then costs go up, complexity goes up and timeframes depart via the window - Tornado and Typhoon demonstrate the perils.

[awj112]

<Snip>


<snip>
The following is just my opinion, so don't all get hot under the collar. I think the whole JSF program was a case of ignoring the lessons from history, trying to design an aircraft to be all things to all men; the parallels with TFX are too big to be ignored. And once you get so many people around the table, all wanting their latest perceived needs to be included, then costs go up, complexity goes up and timeframes depart via the window - Tornado and Typhoon demonstrate the perils.

Funny, I was thinking McNamara and the infamous F-111A/B fiasco.</snip>

[AndyG43]

<SNIP>



Funny, I was thinking McNamara and the infamous F-111A/B fiasco.</SNIP>

Yes, that was the TFX program.

[hubbabubba]

If it is really the first vertical landing of the F-35B on the deck of the USS Wasp, could someone explain to me why the deck is already charred on the very spot it is landing on?

49454

Note that the rest of the deck is in a pristine state.

They say "practice makes perfect"...:kilroy:

P.S.- They also say "You never have a second chance to make a good first impression."

[Willy]

Apparently one of the concerns is the extreme heat of the exhaust might cause soft spots on the deck.


And they have just realised this? It was one of the reasons the Hawker P1154 was cancelled back in the 60s, the potential for the hot exhaust to damage runways, let alone carrier decks; and the Royal Navy had similar problems operating the F-4K Phantom (because of the nose gear mod needed to operate from the smaller RN carriers), Ark Royal had to be equipped with water-cooled deflectors and blast plates - in fact 700P NAS did some carrier trials on the USS Saratoga, made quite a mess of the deck by all accounts.

The US Navy got that whupped on the Helo carriers like the USS Wasp in the video with a special flight deck compound. We couldn't operate Harriers off of our helo deck on the LSD when I was there as our helo deck didn't have it, but it was scheduled to be included in our next shipyard package. Can't say as they made the change after I left though.

[Willy]

Hubba Bubba, that's probably from the Harriers.

[hubbabubba]

Hubba Bubba, that's probably from the Harriers.

Yeah, all on the same spot.

P.S.- What I mean, Willy, is that it would take a lot of Harrier landings to get something approaching this result. Have a look at this picture of a very worn LHD deck HERE (http://imageshack.us/f/842/lhd24.jpg/) .
http://imageshack.us/f/842/lhd24.jpg/
Under normal use, the "signature" of a landing Harrier is much less impressive, see HERE (http://www.defense.gov/dodcmsshare/newsphoto/2005-08/050802-N-3455P-015.jpg) or HERE (http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/lhd2/Photos/LHD2_SEPT_2011_AV-8B_HARRIER__110925-N-WA347-526.jpg) .

To obtain such a large splotch on a recently refurbished LHD deck, you would need a lot of Harriers... or one F-35B.

http://imageshack.us/f/842/lhd24.jpg/

[jhefner]

And they have just realised this? It was one of the reasons the Hawker P1154 was cancelled back in the 60s, the potential for the hot exhaust to damage runways, let alone carrier decks; and the Royal Navy had similar problems operating the F-4K Phantom (because of the nose gear mod needed to operate from the smaller RN carriers), Ark Royal had to be equipped with water-cooled deflectors and blast plates - in fact 700P NAS did some carrier trials on the USS Saratoga, made quite a mess of the deck by all accounts.

Roughly 30 or so years ago, a Harrier came to perform at an air show in Lafayette, LA. They were normally instructed to take off on concrete runways only; but there was an out-of-use asphalt runway that was closer to the crowd line; so he decided to attempt a VTO from it.

The minute he rotated his exhaust down, it melted the asphalt, which was then carried by the prevailing air patterns around the wings and over on top of the plane, where it then rained down on it. The pilot was not aware at first what was happening, but when he was informed, he zoomed away and landed on a concrete runway.

Immediately, one of the ground techs climbed up into one of the intakes and spin the engine by hand, looking for foriegn object damage to the blades.

-James

[deathfromafar]

Good news! Now that the B version is getting past it's major development bugs hopefully things will progress on more quickly now to get it into service where it's needed.


The following is just my opinion, so don't all get hot under the collar. I think the whole JSF program was a case of ignoring the lessons from history, trying to design an aircraft to be all things to all men; the parallels with TFX are too big to be ignored. And once you get so many people around the table, all wanting their latest perceived needs to be included, then costs go up, complexity goes up and timeframes depart via the window - Tornado and Typhoon demonstrate the perils.

The TFX and JSF programs have only one parallel and that being the multi-service banner but after that the similarity ceases. The TFX/F-111 program wasn't a bad idea per say, it was billed as being too heavy for carrier operations yet at the time, the US Navy operated the A-3 and R/A-5 jets which were roughly in the same size as the F-111B with the latter having a much higher MTOW/Payload. The weights and engine issues amongst other things made it obvious the F-111B could not be the jack of all trades aircraft the designers hoped for. No question it was not in the F-14's realm of ACM/FAD capability. Had the time been taken to work out the obvious issues of the 111B it may have made a good standardized bomber/strike aircraft as opposed to having so many different types with the F-14 being in the FAD and Escort role. A lot of factors including engine standardization and streamlined aircraft types and systems might have saved the Navy a lot of money in the long run but of course, it's a what-if we will never know, only speculate. The F-111 sure proved itself to be one of the finest tactical bomber/strike aircraft of all time serving in the USAF and AAF.

As for one size fits all, there have been plenty of examples of successful designs. The F-4 Phantom was one, the F/A-18 another which the latter could have done as well or better in the Air Force as the F-16 over time. The Hornet has proven itself well in a few Air Forces. The F-35 design has considerable latitude in terms of and systems modularity so that the land and carrier based version differences/requirements could be easily integrated into the airframe. The B STOVL variant is of course more complex and there were going to be known tradeoffs but ultimately the capability, reliability/safety improvements over the Harrier are like night and day. There's a lot of experience and knowledge that went into the design and step by step, the engineers and Lockheed Martin are proving the detractors of the design wrong. In time the F-35 like many other designs will prove itself. In this day and age, such technology and capability comes at a price but staying ahead of the game has always been expensive and always will be.

[TARPSBird]

Hehe, regarding that "dark spot" on the deck...
Ask anybody who's spent time aboard a carrier and they'll tell you that occasionally we have spectacular bonfires on deck which only last a few moments. They do not result in any injury or loss of life so you'll never see 'em on the nightly TV news. I was aboard the Hancock in 1970 when a tanker-configured A-4 ruptured its centerline tank on landing. The spilled fuel ignited and it looked nasty until the MB-5 fire truck snuffed the fire ten seconds later. Pilot popped the canopy and climbed down with the help of a silver-suit guy, plane got a little toasty but certainly no strike damage. It all comes under the heading of "sh*t happens". It's the professionalism of the flight deck personnel that keeps it from turning into "sh*t got ugly". :icon_lol:

[hubbabubba]

Hehe, regarding that "dark spot" on the deck...
Ask anybody who's spent time aboard a carrier and they'll tell you that occasionally we have spectacular bonfires on deck which only last a few moments. They do not result in any injury or loss of life so you'll never see 'em on the nightly TV news. I was aboard the Hancock in 1970 when a tanker-configured A-4 ruptured its centerline tank on landing. The spilled fuel ignited and it looked nasty until the MB-5 fire truck snuffed the fire ten seconds later. Pilot popped the canopy and climbed down with the help of a silver-suit guy, plane got a little toasty but certainly no strike damage. It all comes under the heading of "sh*t happens". It's the professionalism of the flight deck personnel that keeps it from turning into "sh*t got ugly". :icon_lol:

You must admit that it would be quite a coincidence that another bird went BBQ just there quite recently (charring is "fresh"). But, what the heck, anything is possible. A "dressed rehearsal" before the premiere would also make sense, especially considering the implications. Maybe a little touch n' go before letting the press to the balcony?:jump:

[srgalahad]

If it is really the first vertical landing of the F-35B on the deck of the USS Wasp, could someone explain to me why the deck is already charred on the very spot it is landing on?


They never really landed on the deck of the Wasp. It was all faked in a Hollywood soundstage leased by NASA in 1968-69.

OK, next theory...

[TARPSBird]

In Naval Aviation, being "the first" to do something is not always a good thing. :icon_lol:

[AndyG43]

Good news! Now that the B version is getting past it's major development bugs hopefully things will progress on more quickly now to get it into service where it's needed.



The TFX and JSF programs have only one parallel and that being the multi-service banner but after that the similarity ceases. The TFX/F-111 program wasn't a bad idea per say, it was billed as being too heavy for carrier operations yet at the time, the US Navy operated the A-3 and R/A-5 jets which were roughly in the same size as the F-111B with the latter having a much higher MTOW/Payload. The weights and engine issues amongst other things made it obvious the F-111B could not be the jack of all trades aircraft the designers hoped for. No question it was not in the F-14's realm of ACM/FAD capability. Had the time been taken to work out the obvious issues of the 111B it may have made a good standardized bomber/strike aircraft as opposed to having so many different types with the F-14 being in the FAD and Escort role. A lot of factors including engine standardization and streamlined aircraft types and systems might have saved the Navy a lot of money in the long run but of course, it's a what-if we will never know, only speculate. The F-111 sure proved itself to be one of the finest tactical bomber/strike aircraft of all time serving in the USAF and AAF.

As for one size fits all, there have been plenty of examples of successful designs. The F-4 Phantom was one, the F/A-18 another which the latter could have done as well or better in the Air Force as the F-16 over time. The Hornet has proven itself well in a few Air Forces. The F-35 design has considerable latitude in terms of and systems modularity so that the land and carrier based version differences/requirements could be easily integrated into the airframe. The B STOVL variant is of course more complex and there were going to be known tradeoffs but ultimately the capability, reliability/safety improvements over the Harrier are like night and day. There's a lot of experience and knowledge that went into the design and step by step, the engineers and Lockheed Martin are proving the detractors of the design wrong. In time the F-35 like many other designs will prove itself. In this day and age, such technology and capability comes at a price but staying ahead of the game has always been expensive and always will be.

Points taken, just not necessarily agreed with. I'll stand by my TFX/JSF comparison; the multi-service element was the problem with TFX, trying to marry the navy & air force requirements into a (nearly) common airframe made the F-111 problems inevitable - thankfully, as you said, it ventually matured into a very fine strike aircraft. JSF has some of the same issues (multiplied, due to international involvement) and, yes, it will undoubtedly mature into a very capable aircraft.

Picking up your comment "ultimately the capability, reliability/safety improvements over the Harrier are like night and day". I mentioned the P1154 earlier; the best thing about that project (another one where inter-service rivalry was an issue) was that when it was ended Hawker were given the go ahead to develop the 'basic' Kestrel design into the Harrier; the relative simplicity of the Harrier (apart from the engine/flight mode obviously) was what made it a success, I doubt the USMC would have been interested in P1154, but P1127 was perfect for them. Over time Harrier grew in capability, with laser designation added, the advent of the Sea Harrier, the AV-8B; but that underlying simplicity remained, which is what made it so flexible.

And I never said that one size couldn't fit all, what I'm saying is that if that size is dictated by a committee then you have problems; TFX, JSF, Tornado, Typhoon, all utlimately successful but all a sight more complex than they probably needed to be, due to the compromises involved. The Phantom was designed initially for a clearly defined role, carrier based interception; but because McDD's design was so good & so well engineered it proved adaptable to many other roles; the F-16, the F-17/18, the Harrier all great aircraft, fulfilling many roles, but working from a good basic design. Probably the classic example is the Hawker Hunter, designed as a basic day interceptor and still providing useful service in many roles over 60 years after the 1st flight of the prototype - good, basic engineering will always win out.

I hope the F-35B does prove to be a success; the V-22 faced cancellation so many times, but has now really started to prove itself.

[hairyspin]

...good, basic engineering will always win out.

I hope the F-35B does prove to be a success

+1 :salute:

[hubbabubba]

As the Wasp was modified at the shipyard this summer to be the testbed of the F-35B at sea (see HERE (http://www.dvidshub.net/news/74178/wasp-prepares-joint-strike-fighter)), it may well have been submitted to "scorching tests" to see if the new revetment would resist the superior thrust and heat generated by the F-35B as compared to the Harrier and to evaluate the newly installed sensors. A turbine mounted vertically on a static scaffold could do the job and, in return, would certainly leave its mark.

I also wondered if it could have been done by the F-35B first t/o but, apparently, it only happened this morning. HERE (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7867619&&s=TOP)


They never really landed on the deck of the Wasp. It was all faked in a Hollywood soundstage leased by NASA in 1968-69.

OK, next theory...

As I never said, let alone hinted, that the F-35B landing was a fake, I fail to see the humor, or the pertinence for that matter, of your remark.

[CWOJackson]

They'll be making landings/takeoffs over the next two weeks.

There is a video of the first takeoff and other landings/takeoffs at this link: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7867619

[deathfromafar]

Points taken, just not necessarily agreed with. I'll stand by my TFX/JSF comparison; the multi-service element was the problem with TFX, trying to marry the navy & air force requirements into a (nearly) common airframe made the F-111 problems inevitable - thankfully, as you said, it ventually matured into a very fine strike aircraft. JSF has some of the same issues (multiplied, due to international involvement) and, yes, it will undoubtedly mature into a very capable aircraft.

Picking up your comment "ultimately the capability, reliability/safety improvements over the Harrier are like night and day". I mentioned the P1154 earlier; the best thing about that project (another one where inter-service rivalry was an issue) was that when it was ended Hawker were given the go ahead to develop the 'basic' Kestrel design into the Harrier; the relative simplicity of the Harrier (apart from the engine/flight mode obviously) was what made it a success, I doubt the USMC would have been interested in P1154, but P1127 was perfect for them. Over time Harrier grew in capability, with laser designation added, the advent of the Sea Harrier, the AV-8B; but that underlying simplicity remained, which is what made it so flexible.

And I never said that one size couldn't fit all, what I'm saying is that if that size is dictated by a committee then you have problems; TFX, JSF, Tornado, Typhoon, all utlimately successful but all a sight more complex than they probably needed to be, due to the compromises involved. The Phantom was designed initially for a clearly defined role, carrier based interception; but because McDD's design was so good & so well engineered it proved adaptable to many other roles; the F-16, the F-17/18, the Harrier all great aircraft, fulfilling many roles, but working from a good basic design. Probably the classic example is the Hawker Hunter, designed as a basic day interceptor and still providing useful service in many roles over 60 years after the 1st flight of the prototype - good, basic engineering will always win out.

I hope the F-35B does prove to be a success; the V-22 faced cancellation so many times, but has now really started to prove itself.

Good points.

I'd like to add that in general, the F-35A and C models are well suited in straight forward for their intended multirole uses with possible flexibility to expand into other roles and weapon platforms. It's been said from the beginning that the STOVL version was what would stretch the JSF project to the limit thus adding higher costs and risk. I won't dispute that at all. The first versions of the B had a more complex system of shutter doors for the lift fan system that IMO were more than at average risk for failures and extensive maintenance to preserve stealth aspects of the airframe. The refined versions of those systems seem to be on the right track now as well as refinement of other core segments of the entire Engine/STOVL components and subsets.

Yes the F-35B is more complex and costly than the Harrier but the performance and payload are far higher. The FBW stabilization and excess thrust give the F-35B far greater "cushion" of safety and ease of handling over the Harrier. Having grown up not far from MCAS Cherry Point, I can remember the rash of AV-8A accidents and the Marine pilots calling them the "Carolina Lawn Dart" or Widowmaker. It was a tricky aircraft to master and all the test pilots who flew the A version including former WW2 German Ace Gerhard Barkhorn were adamant that the Harrier should only be manned by experienced pilots ranking Captain to Major(who would have a considerable number of jet hours by that time in their careers). The AV-8B while an improvement over the A, it has had it's share of accidents as well. One retired USMC Harrier pilot(former A-4 pilot) who lives near me remarked that either version of the Harrier had certain advantages over other tactical jets but it's limitations and learning curve were it's Achilles heel.

While I suspect the F-35B will better the Harrier in many aspects, I won't step out on a limb to say it's going to be flawless. I expect to see it hit a few snags during the length of it's career. Hopefully those snags won't sour it's potential and reputation as it wrings out.

[hairyspin]

They'll be making landings/takeoffs over the next two weeks.

There is a video of the first takeoff and other landings/takeoffs at this link: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7867619

Fascinating to watch the jet pipe 'waggling' back and forward on leaving the deck. Having seen a pre-production nozzle on display some years ago, that vid speaks volumes for the engineering of the thrust vectoring system.

[AndyG43]

It was a tricky aircraft to master and all the test pilots who flew the A version including former WW2 German Ace Gerhard Barkhorn were adamant that the Harrier should only be manned by experienced pilots ranking Captain to Major(who would have a considerable number of jet hours by that time in their careers). The AV-8B while an improvement over the A, it has had it's share of accidents as well. One retired USMC Harrier pilot(former A-4 pilot) who lives near me remarked that either version of the Harrier had certain advantages over other tactical jets but it's limitations and learning curve were it's Achilles heel.

Totally! My ex-father in law was a crew chief on 1 Squadron when they got their first Harriers (long way from his first role, prewar, gunner in the back of a Hawker Hind bomber), back then they could barely struggle from one side of RAF Wittering to the other. It was assumed that a lot of the Hunter pilots would just transition to Harrier, but some just weren't up to it.