Article

2010-12-03 Science & Technology

Another design error in the Navy's F-35 fighters

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Frozen Al 2010-12-03 11:57|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 Nothing new here. One of the reasons the ALQ-165 was never deployed on carrier based F-18s (the principal aircraft for which it was developed) is that it is too heavy. When tested for catapult launch, it broke the mounting bolts. Stronger bolts resulted in broken mounting brackets. Stronger mounting brackets resulted in breaking the keel of the airplane. Good systems engineers and rigorous requirements prevent stuff like this, but both are in short supply.

Posted by rwv 2010-12-03 13:36|| 2010-12-03 13:36|| Front Page Top

#2 VERTREP is a good way and engines are routinely brought aboard the CVs this way and not with the 'cranes' as the article says (at least not underway)
there is a risk: witnessed the only aft fuel cell in the inventory for the trusty Intruder 'float-checked' when the CH-53 lost a motor on a hot Indian Ocean day ( is there any other).
and heat mats sounds like a real rube goldberg set up.

cancel the STOVL and buy only the conventional ones. the lift fan is going to be a maintenance nightmare.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2010-12-03 15:02|| 2010-12-03 15:02|| Front Page Top

#3 I was wondering abotu that - why worry with STOVL on the big deck CVs? Sounds like its a prob only for the gators.

Posted by OldSpook 2010-12-03 15:58|| 2010-12-03 15:58|| Front Page Top

#4 Next-gen catapults are going to be electrically driven, rather than curent steam. and max T.O. weight of F-35 is well below cat design max throw weight. I can see no reason for STOVL on CVs and looking at design I do not see a lot of FOD protection for operating from primitive / roads for runways. At least the harrier placed the jet blast for vertical ops at several locations rather than being concentrated. And it is direct bleed air, not some shaft driven fan with complex doors and such. I only hope the USMC dumps this albatross like they did the A-12 Avenger II. (disclaimer, i worked that program and SecDef Cheney killed my second career when he axed the aircraft, dammit)

Posted by USN, Ret. 2010-12-03 18:03|| 2010-12-03 18:03|| Front Page Top

#5 (disclaimer, i worked that program and SecDef Cheney killed my second career when he axed the aircraft, dammit) Posted by USN, Ret.

Try the Infantry next go around, fewer moving parts, and far less costly.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-12-03 20:29|| 2010-12-03 20:29|| Front Page Top

#6 Infantry can't do close air support.

But it would be fun watching them get launched from a carrier...

Posted by Pappy 2010-12-03 21:37|| 2010-12-03 21:37|| Front Page Top

#7 Can the catapults on existing CVs be retrofitted with the electromatic variety? Without it, we won't have a lot of platforms to launch the F-35 from.

Posted by gorb 2010-12-03 21:55|| 2010-12-03 21:55|| Front Page Top

#8 Gorb, that's the plan or so I thought I heard, at least for the last batch, prior to the new designs - a retro fit when they do the midlife renewal.

Posted by OldSpook 2010-12-03 23:48|| 2010-12-03 23:48|| Front Page Top

23:50 OldSpook
23:48 OldSpook
23:44 JosephMendiola
23:37 Uleger Barnsmell4617
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:07 JosephMendiola
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:56 Pappy
22:55 SteveS
22:49 JosephMendiola
22:42 tipper
22:35 Gabby
22:32 JosephMendiola
22:20 JosephMendiola
22:19 Water Modem
22:17 JosephMendiola
22:13 JosephMendiola
22:11 tu3031
22:07 gorb
21:59 gorb
21:58 Broadhead6
21:55 JosephMendiola
21:55 gorb
21:51 gorb