Okomo, Kokomo, talk about a hot foot.
The new F-35 can't land vertically - at least not twice.
- Thread starter mikea
- Start date
Okomo, Kokomo, talk about a hot foot.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,271
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Why would they need to land vertically on a runway anyway? When Marine Harriers deployed to OEF They operated from 10,000 + ft of runway. Vertical landings have always been the need to get back about ship. They've already demonstrated this effectively.
If there is a need for VTOL, you simply set up AM-2 matting like they've always done with Harriers.
If there is a need for VTOL, you simply set up AM-2 matting like they've always done with Harriers.
Attachments
Jimmy cooper
En-Route
The whole F 35 program is a disaster. Wayyyy over budget, doesn't fly often, major political screwup. Will go downcast as a terrible costly blunder.
So, a very average government success story
Jimmy cooper
En-Route
I would differ. Many military aircraft have been excellent. Not to mention the highway system, second to none, the Internet, GI bill, health research at various top flight universitys, on and on, endless success story's.
The requirement for the Marines was that the fighter be able to land on a 3000 foot improvised runway deep into the front.
flyingriki
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 910
- Display Name
Display name:
flyingriki
All old accomplishments long before the current crop of idiots.....of both parties.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,271
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Exactly. That's why vertical landing isn't important for the land based mission. They could easily do a roll on to an improvised strip. Once established on that strip they can lay the AM-2 matting like on the pic I attached.
I'm not supporting the F-35 program as a whole but this article is pointless.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 4,096
- Location
- The city of Townsville
- Display Name
Display name:
Mantis Toboggan, MD
Where does/will the FRS do workups prior to shipboard quals?
That being said I think it's funny that "we" think the media are never accurate in matters pertaining to general aviation but always dead-on in matters of military aircraft and government contracts.
Nauga,
who is not a fan of the program or the trade press
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,271
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Where does/will the FRS do workups prior to shipboard quals?
That being said I think it's funny that the media are never accurate in matters pertaining to general aviation but always dead-on in matters of military aircraft and government contracts.
Nauga,
who is not a fan of the program or the trade press
VMFA-121 had been doing vertical landings for about a year now in Yuma. Huge amount of money been put into facilities out there.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 4,096
- Location
- The city of Townsville
- Display Name
Display name:
Mantis Toboggan, MD
Haven't heard reports of 'em chunking up runways in Yuma, and I know they have hover pads there. Maybe they didn't read the article?
Nauga,
and a little muckraking
kontiki
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 1,122
- Display Name
Display name:
Kontiki
Awesome, I was in VMA-121 in 1974. When I got there they had just started upgrading from A-6A to Es.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,271
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Yeah when I did ATC in the Corps they were based at Miramar and had Hornets. Only Marine A-6s I worked were VMFA-332 guys in 93 right before they transitioned. Always liked the Intruder.
Last edited:
Seanaldinho
Pattern Altitude
I see them fly nearly 5 days a week.
There are between 12-18 on base at Eglin and another dozen or so out west.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Can't speak for the concrete effect (other than echo McFly's comment about the lack of complaints coming out of Pax River and Yuma), but I can say from personal experience that it does just fine with vertical landings on the LHD. Two rounds of developmental testing on WASP and our deck hasn't been damaged. The current structural mods we are getting have more to do with long term support for the weight of this thing (MUCH larger than an AV-8).
My question is how much the F-35B can carry if it had to take off vertically. If the lift system generates low 40k of thrust, and the jet weighs 32k empty (a number that will only grow), how much does that leave for fuel and weapons? It's a question for me because a lot of the selling I've heard recently for the USMC is based off of its VTOL capabilities.
I don't know how much excess thrust you need to do a vertical takeoff, but those numbers sure don't give you much flexibility. What are you gonna do, take off with two bombs, two AIM-120s, gun, and 2,000lbs of fuel? Then hit an Osprey tanker?
I don't know how much excess thrust you need to do a vertical takeoff, but those numbers sure don't give you much flexibility. What are you gonna do, take off with two bombs, two AIM-120s, gun, and 2,000lbs of fuel? Then hit an Osprey tanker?
Last edited:
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,565
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
The F-35B's intended mission does not involve vertical takeoffs. The mission is Short TakeOff, Vertical Landing (STOVL). Why vertical landing and short takeoff? Dunno, but that's how the spec's were written.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Because of the nature of operating from an LHD.
Like anything in aviation, it's a trade off between capability and payload. The aircraft ( much like an AV-8) can takeoff vertically with no load, but if you want to carry fuel and ordnance, something has to give, so the specs called for STOVL.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,271
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Yep, just like helicopters. You reach a weight and at a particularly high DA were you don't have the power to go vertically throught ground effect so you do a rolling takeoff. After you do your mission and shed some pounds you can come back and land vertically.
Last edited:
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Good point. The UH-1s for example can't take off vertically with any kind of load. They have to have a deck run.
I meant VTOL... oops. And yes, some of the selling points/things I've heard involve vertical takeoff... distributed operations, operating inside the enemy's targeting cycle, closer to the FLOT, etc, which is why I brought up its payload using VTOL. Not saying I buy it.
I also don't understand the USMC mix of 340 F-35B and 80 F-35C. The USMC has two boat F-18 squadrons and I'm going to guess around 6 or 7 fleet Harrier squadrons. Out of maybe 20 TACAIR squadrons that's less than half that go to the boat, yet the buy mix is 80% of the B - heavier, only 6.0g, only carries as much fuel internally as a single wet Hornet but burns more, costs more than the other F-35, instead of buying more Cs or even As.
Last edited:
I was gonna ask why a fighter would have to be close to the front, but I guess it helps if it's there and ready to go into action and not 30 minutes out.
Haven't heard reports of 'em chunking up runways in Yuma, and I know they have hover pads there. Maybe they didn't read the article?
Nauga,
and a little muckraking
Well, for spalling you need moisture in the concrete; when was the last time Yuma had moisture in the concrete?
When it lands on the LHD, is it a true vertical landing, or is it a relative vertical landing on a ship moving into the wind giving the plane 15+kts of airspeed?
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
To understand the difference in numbers, it helps to understand how the F-35 is intended to fit into the arsenal. With the exception of the AV-8, the F-35 is not intended to replace anything. I can't speak for the Air Force plans, but from what I have seen, for the USN/USMC, the F-35C will augment existing Hornet squadrons. So you will have only a few F-35Cs deploying with any given F-18 squadron, thus no need for the Marines to have large numbers of the C.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Depends on what the ship/winds are doing. I don't know what the final wind envelopes will be, but we tested in a large range of combinations. But, obviously the aircraft adjusts for wind/ship speed and direction in order to land on the intended spot.
35 AoA
Pattern Altitude
That is not the plan for the USN side at least; ie it will be a full transition for each squadron to go F-35C, just like when a squadron moves from Hornet to Rhino. Mixing would be a logistical and training nightmare for any operational squadron for a lot of reasons. I know on occasion, due to limited airframes, the USMC guys will deploy with mixed C's and D's, but that is the same airplane for NATOPS currency and 4790/MX purposes, and as a pilot you can hop between the two any time you want. Out at Fallon you have "dual qual'd" guys, as in F/A-18A-G as well as F-16, but that is a completely different environment than one of a deployed unit.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
When did that change? Not saying I don't believe you, but it was the initial plan I saw. I agree that mixing would be a nightmare.
35 AoA
Pattern Altitude
Maybe it was that way early on. Haven't seen anything like that on any MAP in the last 3-4 years though. Incidentally, my squadron was initially intended to be the first to transition (though well after I leave for my shore tour pretty soon), and that has changed about 10 times. We went from being the first 35 squadron, to getting high lot E's, to being the last charlie squadron, and most recently back to getting high lot E's (again, well after I leave). So it is a living document to be sure, but I haven't heard anything about mixed squadrons.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
I think what I saw was an initial acquisition plan. I don't recall how old it was.
Do you know where you're going for shore duty yet?
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 4,096
- Location
- The city of Townsville
- Display Name
Display name:
Mantis Toboggan, MD
The good part: No night traps.
The bad part: No day traps either
Nauga,
and his strain gauges
35 AoA
Pattern Altitude
The good part: No night traps.
The bad part: No day traps either
Nauga,
and his strain gauges
That's ok.....you guys can have both the day and the night traps
That is one career total that I have very little interest in......@ Fearless, no I won't know for a couple more months, when my slate goes down. We'll see....there have been a lot of guys going to T-45's lately, which isn't exactly at the top of my list. Then again, that could be either a bad sign or a good sign. Mainly I'm just trying to get back to the west coast, so Fallon, China Lake, or Lemoore are at the top of my list. No word yet if there is an AF exchange slot on my slate, but I would be interested in that as well (15's or 16's)
Blackhawk
Pre-takeoff checklist
1. Highway system. Okay, but have you looked at where the highway funds now go? We were told the stimulus package would help our infrastructure, but now we are told we need to spend more. Good article on the subject:
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/federal-highway-funding
2. Internet. One of the OWTs is that the government invented the internet. Not really. Xerox. Of course.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518
3. GI Bill was good, but it was money granted to GI's and used in a private enterprise, the purchase of a college education. As the government decided this was a great idea and got more and more involved in the education system costs exploded to the point where we now have a student loan bubble, thanks to the government.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...overnment-shouldnt-subsidize-higher-education
4. Ahh yes, critical health research. Like the study on why chimps throw their poop? Or the $5 million spent on the website Sexpulse? Or maybe you meant that critical study costing over $1million on how playing World of Warcraft might help seniors? I'm sure that was well spent. No- you must mean the study on the benefits of watching reruns on TV.
EvilEagle
Pattern Altitude
That's ok.....you guys can have both the day and the night traps
@ Fearless, no I won't know for a couple more months, when my slate goes down. We'll see....there have been a lot of guys going to T-45's lately, which isn't exactly at the top of my list. Then again, that could be either a bad sign or a good sign. Mainly I'm just trying to get back to the west coast, so Fallon, China Lake, or Lemoore are at the top of my list. No word yet if there is an AF exchange slot on my slate, but I would be interested in that as well (15's or 16's)
Good luck. The Navy exchange guy at Kadena (F15) just got hired here in my guard unit so he's leaving there soon.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,271
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
What about an exchange program with another country? I know they took our guys flying Harriers and Tornados in the UK back in the day. Do they have any openings for "yanks" flying Typhoons today? Buddy of mine flew H-3s on a Canadian exchange program years ago.
35 AoA
Pattern Altitude
Yeah I think that one is out, unless there is more than one navy guy there, since a guy I know just got it recently.
35 AoA
Pattern Altitude
Yeah, for VFA/Hornets there are exchanges with the UK for Tornados and Typhoons, Spain EF-18, Canada CF-18, Swiss F-18, Australia F/A-18F, France Super Etendard and Rafale, and I'm not sure if the one in Germany still exists. They don't open up very often, and they are not "hard fills" (as in they only get filled if all the other USN production/instructor billets get filled), so it isn't that common to grab. It would be a really cool experience I'm sure, and I'd be happy doing it, but there are also some significant negative ramifications in doing one when it comes to FITREPS.....basically you walk out the door at the end with several non-competitive 1 of 1 FITREPS that can very likely screw you in the future.....or at least require you to do a really undesirable follow on job to become "competitive" once again......which is basically the bureau's way of making you pay back such a good deal. At least that is my understanding from several front office discussions about the matter. I'm sure mileage varies depending on the person, and their specific circumstances but that is the gist I got.
AF exchange presents similar issues, but as I understand, is not as detrimental. For us, during your shore tour, you are with very very few exceptions (as in someone wants to get out and just asked for something different), expected to go to a flying tour.....and that flying tour, in the minds of BUPERS, should be a "production billet" where you are either a Hornet/F-35 instructor, a T-45 instructor, an SFTI (TOPGUN graduate) serving in Fallon or one of the the weapons schools, a TPS grad working in one of the test squadrons, or working at Strike in Fallon as an airwing instructor. Anything other than that is seen as either neutral to bad.....common ones being adversary/aggressor and any exchange tour. That's unfortunate in my mind, because those tours give you some cool unique experiences, but it also drives away the guys who are really chomping at the bit to make command.
That was a very long answer to a short question
Jimmy cooper
En-Route
It boggles the mind how ill informed you are.
Blackhawk
Pre-takeoff checklist
Good argument. Especially from someone sucking on the government teet in MD.
Blackhawk
Pre-takeoff checklist
"Of the total 2012 federal spending, firms received federal contracts to perform $27.3 billion worth of work in Maryland, making Maryland the fourth largest recipient of federal procurement dollars. The largest federal contractor, Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin Corp., which was awarded contracts valued at $1.8 billion in Maryland and a total of $36 billion nationwide, employs about 5,000 people in Montgomery County alone."
"Given its proximity to Washington, DC and the many federal institutions within
Maryland, the federal government contributes substantially to the State’s economy. In federal fiscal year (FFY) 2007, the federal government expended $70.6 billion in Maryland, or $12,569 as measured on a per capita basis. This amount was about 50% greater than the national per capital average of $8,339, ranking Maryland third highest overall after Virginia and Alaska. The
substantial influence of the federal government on the State is the focus of this analysis – changes in federal government expenditures will likely have a disproportionate influence on the State’s economy and can cause changes in the economy that are unexpected given prevailing economic conditions."
Interesting reading on the amount of money being sucked up by the DC area from the "fly over country".
http://dls.state.md.us/data/polanas...f-Federal-Government-on-Marylands-Economy.pdf
"Given its proximity to Washington, DC and the many federal institutions within
Maryland, the federal government contributes substantially to the State’s economy. In federal fiscal year (FFY) 2007, the federal government expended $70.6 billion in Maryland, or $12,569 as measured on a per capita basis. This amount was about 50% greater than the national per capital average of $8,339, ranking Maryland third highest overall after Virginia and Alaska. The
substantial influence of the federal government on the State is the focus of this analysis – changes in federal government expenditures will likely have a disproportionate influence on the State’s economy and can cause changes in the economy that are unexpected given prevailing economic conditions."
Interesting reading on the amount of money being sucked up by the DC area from the "fly over country".
http://dls.state.md.us/data/polanas...f-Federal-Government-on-Marylands-Economy.pdf
Last edited: