grigolosi

Does aesthetics count? Because good lord, the 32 was not easy on the eyes. It looked like a flying Basking shark.....but that does pose a good question though.

Yup, I thought about that too when I watched Schwarzesmarken. Wasn't too sure if it was the real Jlly Rogers' that were the inspiration though,

It is probably a mixture of both. The current holders of the Jolly Roger in the USN are VF-103. here is some footage of them playing with their Super Hornets....The title is WRONG so pay no attention to it..

Unfortunately the continuing test of the frame has caused restrictions on the airspeed from what i was reading. Even the AF had to say screw you to LM and the DoD when it came to starting up the low level training of the pilots because of all the safety restrictions that were placed on the frame. That now infamous dogfight between the F-16D (with external 370's) and the F-35 was not actually a true gauging of its ability. The 35 that was used was one of the test flight birds and wasn't equipped with production standard hardware. The 35 was also restricted in its maneuvering by the same restrictions as the low level production models are. The whole program is being pushed along at the speed of a snail. As much as I believe this aircraft program has cost too much I see the engineers and other folks in charge of it as much too blame on the lack of progress. I know P&W have rated the 135 engine at 50K now (after GE provoked them by basically telling both the AF and Navy their 136 produced more thrust) and the actual production blocks are now cleared for speeds from Mach 1.6 to 1.7. If they want this bird to work they are going to eventually have to bite the bullet and start lifting some of the restrictions on the frame.

The older Hornets were always under powered compared to the F-14's, F-15's and F-16's (thrust to weight on the F-16 is far better). The Super Hornet fixed that with the newer engines. I know the Marines are planning on replacing their EA-6's with Jammer equipped 35's, but I honestly don't know what the Navy's true motive behind the 35 acquisition is other than it maybe being forced on them.

Typically the Amphibs are also used quite often as a quick reaction force. They are deployed on a moments notice and generally operate by themselves until the larger fleet carrier(s) arrive to help provide support. The reading I have done on it show the Marines planning on buying 340 B and 80 C model's with most of them being stationed on either carriers or on shore installations. The limited number of B models on the America class assault carriers will be there again primarily for quick reaction force support until a fleet carrier BG joins up with them. When you consider where the fleet carriers are typically performing their deployment cruises, they are typcially not close to where these quick reaction crisis arise (never in the right spot at the right time). Plus the Marines discovered in Lebanon in the early 80's that helicopters do not fair as well against AD systems alone. So they make it SOP to ensure that there is some form of fixed aircraft support with the Amphibs even though it very limited. Also I know for a fact they receive CAS from other branches but in a situation again where there are no shore based assets within range nor a fleet carrier either than they have to use the support they themselves provide.

Ironically enough though I was looking at the cost per aircraft and the C models will cost more than either the A or the B. The beefed up Navy requirements really ran the bill up on the F-35C.

(without facts or figures to backup my claim) I blame 2 factors for the delays and costs inflation.

1. The F-35B variant. The STOVL variant alone probably contributed the biggest airframe compromises. I just don't understand the USMC's infatuation with STOVL and the need to have them on their amphib. carriers. Same with the Brits. Why operate STOVL jets from a decently sized carrier (HMS Queen Eliz)?

2. The desire to incorporate every last state-of-the-art techno wizardry into the airframe from the beginning. Why not deliver the F-35 with off-the-shelf components and leave some room in the airframe for the eventual upgrades? Perhaps that could've mitigated the delays, cost overruns, and bad press?

[shrug]

Just some thoughts.

One answer to the USMC infatuation with placing STOVL's on the amphib carriers is directly related to USMC aviation doctrine. If you ask any Marine pilot what their purpose is and they will tell you "support the ground pounder Marines". The entire purpose of Marine aviation is to support their ground operations. With their deployable forces stationed on the Amphib carriers they see the best option as having their MAW/MAG support right there with them. But the STOVL configuration did add more weight and slowed down the development program and added costs to it. The STOVL version was the last of the versions to begin flight testing. Because of the design of the engine it doesn't even have a tail hook and nor internal gun. The gun pod for it is still in development.

The scary part is that the F-35 is not a small aircraft by any means. I have been around them up close and it is a fairly large aircraft frame wise. It isn't as big as an F-22 but it definitely shadows the F-16. A lot of compromises were made system side in simple stuff like cannon plug connectors. If you look at most 4th gen birds and older these plugs are all metal. The crew chiefs on the 35's pointed out that they are plastic on that jet and they told me they tend to break fairly easily especially if you try to use a set of cannon plug pliers on them to disconnect them (these plugs can be a PITA to disconnect depending on where they are and how tight they thread on already). Plastic itself tends to not deal with certain climates very well as is, they can get very brittle from the cold or high heat climates. But this was a compromise made to save weight on the frame.

Schizo I absolutely;y agree the 391 Billion dollar tag over all was/is not justifiable. The program snowballed so quickly it was scary. I know someone in the Forums tried to justify it by comparing it to older aircraft programs, it didn't fly with me nor a lot of other folks and in the end he sounded like a salesman for LM. I believe the whole stealth/LO issue has restricted the practical design of modern aircraft like you said. I believe a lot of this is from the West looking at these newer AD missile systems and placing western tech standards in the evaluations. We did this in the late 60's with the MIG-25. When you looked at the Foxbat on paper and looked at it as though it was designed and built by the Western nations it scared the hell out of everyone. After one was examined closely the realization of its actual capabilities struck like a iron skillet to the head. The F-35 is a result of this fear of the "modern" battlefield. All these "You have to have LO to survive.....blah blah blah" statements by all these analyst just propagates the issue further. I believe we could have gotten a good aircraft that balanced the the needs of LO and practicality but like always engineers and generals want push button weapons. This program now is a big S#$% sandwich and now all we can do is try to make taste better since we have to take a big bite as taxpayers sadly enough.

F-Zero I definitley agree with you on what you said. We are way past the point of no return on the 35 now. Like I said all 3 US branches and some of the other countries are going to have to make the aircraft work now. I think you are right when you said there is a major disconnect between what people think that jet should do and what it actually does by design. I know the French would love to be able to tell everyone that the RAF and RN came to them asking to buy those damn Rafale's (noisy ass aircraft for such small engines). As far as navalized GR-1's and F-3's go I honestly have no idea whether the idea was ever proposed David. I have never read of it but I have never actually looked into it either.

I know from what I have seen in the facebook groups I belong too ( USAF Crew Chiefs and F-16 Crew Chiefs) the very term "F-35" causes some serious yelling. A lot of the old heads like me that crewed the 4th gen fighters get livid over the idea of the jets they crewed being replaced, especially by an aircraft that has had so many development problems. They say the same thing many have. " We just need to build new F-16's and F-15's". A good friend of mine pointed out that back in the 70's if all we used that mentality we would have never had the 4th gen birds. we would have been still using the F-4's, F-100's and F-105's because "meh....these jets work just fine". I have come to the conclusion that very few people can have a calm rational discussion about the F-35.......ever.

The new higher thrust engines we are moving into are a new realm for the engineers. I am not a big fan of "that" plane myself. I agree with Schizo that the amount the US government has spent on it has given very little in return so far but when I saw that information on the cooling issues for the engine lube systems and then witnessed them happening on a "proven" frame that has a newer higher thrust engine I realized in respect that engineers like always have missed something. The cooling system on most modern fighters is a FOHE type (Fuel Oil Heat Exchanger). The oil is piped through an section of the aircraft's fuel cell to alleviate the heat it builds circulating through the engine systems. The Hydraulics are also cooled the same way but hydraulic fluid is a not quite as hot ( the max operating temp for F-16 hydraulic systems are 260 degrees). The engineers I doubt even took into consideration the affect of increased heat from the engine on the other birds FOHE system. The turbine oil is circulated straight through the core of the engine when operating (the center shafts have several oil sumps located in them). The temps have got be incredible. Unfortunately we are stuck with this jet now and all 3 branches are going to have to make it work. As long as they are actually dropping something from the bomb bays in order to train the pilots it shows some progress is being made. It is going to be curious to see what happens when they get over to this part of the world during the summer and see what happens. I know F-22's operate here and they don't seem to have any issues with the over heating of their systems like the "other" bird does in places that are a relatively cool climate wise.

Everything I have read on the ETF competition, the XL would have won it if the GE engine had been approved for use in the F-16 at the time. Unfortunately the GE was in the testing phase on the F-16 at the time so GD had to use the Pratt and Whimpy in the XL frame, which made it under powered compared to the split tail Strike Chicken. But that is the way things went so we have what we have now.

It makes me wonder though if the advancement of tech the 23 would have made somewhat frightened the AF also. I wouldn't doubt that some rep from LM made sure to harp on the "instabilities" of such advance tech , especially in the engine to the AF leadership. But if anything like that happened it did so behind closed doors and we will probably never know.

A little interesting information though is that over here we have had a LARGE number of thermal disconnects with the generators on the Block 60's this past year. One of our electricians poised an interesting theory that relates directly to the F-35. The 35 now has too used cooled fuel when refueled to prevent the same issue on it using the 35K thrust engine. That is with the aircraft stateside so it hasn't really encountered real field conditions. These block 60's are flying in 115-120 degree heat during the summer here and the 132 is rated at 32K. The electrician suggested that the fuel is not sufficiently cool enough to cool the oil system, especially in the generator. We do know that the fuel trucks are kept outside in the sun all day in the heat and the storage tanks are probably being heated the same way. I know a lot of folks in the maintenance world threw a fit when they heard about the fuel issue on the F-35 but I honestly believe in this case it is very true. This is something the engineers didn't put into teh equation when have designed these higher and higher thrust engines.

Schizo you are correct about the YF-22's demo being flashy. They actually launched an AIM-9 during the flyoff which the YF-23 was not ready to do since Northrop was told there would be no weapons demonstrated during the flyoff. The folks i talked to at Eddies dueing my time there told me that the 23 was the better aircraft of the 2. The YF-23 was flying sorties a day after it arrived with minimum set up and continued flying with no major issues during the flyoff. The frontal profile of the aircraft was far harder to see at distance.....to the point that most people didn't see it on approach until it s gear were down and the landing light was on. I love this next feature...it had NO SAFETY WIRE on it. It was intended to use on self locking nuts on its components. The flyoff was won by politics not actual capability as Schizo pointed out.

Tomcats as good as they were also had a bad rep as a maintenance hog. I had an assistant crew chief on my jet at Eddies who had been a plane captain on both Tomcats and Hornets in the Navy before he got out and came in the AF. He said Tomcats were a hydraulic nightmare. They averaged at least 1-2 IFE's a week for hydraulic failure. When they flew they were great aircraft but the maintenance man hours to flying hours started getting expensive. I do believe they could have looked at upgrading the frames completely but who knows how much that would have cost.

Schizo my buddy up in Alaska has almost the same issues too. He doesn't get the vertigo fortunately. When we worked together at Red Flag Alaska he would come into work in such bad moods some mornings that everyone would just leave him alone. He finally told me one morning after about 6 months why he was so "cranky". His tinnitus was keeping him from sleeping and would flare up during work and cause him quite a bit of discomfort. He went to the AF Med group on base about it but in typical fashion they wouldn't do anything for him except give him motrin. I really hope this surgery works for your father.

Spanner I was doing some reading yesterday, I know the RAAF operates some E-7 aircraft, they are essentially a 737 equipped to do AWACS and they also operate C-17's.

I am lucky mine only acts up from time to time and compared to my friends it is not bad at all. It literally sounds like a synthesized tone in your ear. I wouldn't describe as a ringing as more like a constant tone you hear during a hearing test if you have ever had one.

I know one aircraft that is nosier than a lot of fighters on takeoff also is the U-2. Those SOB's are extremely loud on takeoff and you can here them clearly when they several thousand feet off the ground and climbing. The GE they use smokes like a J-79 also.

I retired out of Eglin AFB. They fly the F-35's there but as far as i can tell by just listening they aren't really any louder than the normal 15's and 16's that fly from there. Do you see any formation lights on it when it takes off Spanner?

The GE 129/132 will literally vibrate you so much at full burner that you can feel yourself moving across the hush house floor. Even with a headset on you can't hear a word the run man in the cockpit is saying. Jet noise is no joke. But oddly enough the worst I have ever heard of was the T-37 trainer the USAF used. Ground crews were told flat out that they would suffer hearing loss from working around them for too long. The shape of the intakes and the small engine inlet induced such a high pitch sound it was worse than a normal fighter engine. The Pratts are second on my list of unbearable engine noise. The intakes are smaller on Pratt powered F-16's so they are far higher pitched when they are running. You can almost imagine what dog hears with a dog whistle. I get ringing in my ears from time to time now due to the jet noise I heard everyday. My friend who worked F-111's has tinnitus so bad he has problems sleeping when it flares up.

Actually that is what a F-15 sounds like when it starts from a long distance away. We can hear them across 2 runways here at Al Dhafra when they crank up. That is the sound level you hear at 1-2 miles away. Even the start system on that bird is old. It uses a pull cable to actuate the start sequence on it.

Hell the US military does what ever it needs to now to keep the private sector happy. Lockheed probably made a stink about having to designate the 35 by the next military sequence number. So the DOD said ok just keep your program designation number on it if you want, just give us our shiny new toy.....Actually I bet the next one will be called the F-OU8129'er.....yes you heard a 9'er in there.....

This is a lilttle off topic but this video shows one of the best damned birds I ever crewed and was my first 1 seater as a Dedicated Crew Chief..........91-0411...aka "Slick Fifty!

Miles the last active American fighter to use cart starters were the F-4's. By the time I went into the AF(1990)they would only use them for a start check for scheduled maintenance to ensure the system worked. Outside of that they used an aircrart to start the J-79.

Unfortunately I couldn't find anything that showed the JFS start on an F-16 from the crew chiefs perspective. But I did find a start up from the cockpit on a maintenance run. Schizo is correct though. The JFS on an F-16 is initiated by placing the the switch to JFS start 2 ( it last longer than 1). This causes the JFS/brake accum to dump pressure through a hyd fuse which sends roughly 5 secs worth of press through the hyd start motor mounted below the JFS. At the same time pressure is sent the JFS doors which open and actuate a roller switch. This switch tells the DESSC (the brains of the start system) to start the JFS igniter. There are 3 valves mounted above the JFS that regulate fuel flow during the start at certain rpm percentages. The fuel ignites building both RPM's and torque. As the JFS builds rpms it rotates the ADG which rotates the PTO shaft to the engine causing the fan, compressor and turbine sections to spin. Once the engine hits around 25% RPM the throttle is moved over the the cutoff and the engine low energy igniters light the fuel in the combustion chamber. Once the engine begins its RPM climb the PTO shaft actually reverses and spins the other way. A clutch in the ADG disengages the the JFS from the PTO shaft and the JFS igniters stop and the fuel flow to the JFS shuts off... That is the startup in a nutshell. David is correct though...F-15 starters are really whinny and shrill. Watch DYRL and you will hear the F-15 JFS used as a sound affect on the Valkyries.Here is the video of the eng start from the cockpit.

Personally I prefer GE engines over the P&W. Even though both are in the 29K range, the GE can actually be trimmed up to 32K with no real issues. Performing intake inspections on the Pratt is a pain. They have more blades and are smaller than the GE's fan and they have a stupid long PS2 probe that sticks out on the front of the bearing sump cover. This stupid probe gets hot as hell and you have to maneuver around it to inspect the blades In fact installing a Pratt is like throwing a hotdog down a hallway (please excuse my language if I offended anyone). The shear difference in the engines diameters is astonishing. I know Eagle fixers do not like GE's. They complain that they are "too oil sensitive", never mind the fact it is a more powerful engine.

I can see that since the Navy has always leaned toward twin engine aircraft for safety purposes. I also wouldn't want to see how much the frame weight went up due to the increase in frame and undercarriage strengthening it would have required.

A lot of the reinforcement was required for the increase in the bomb load capacity for the block 40 and above. The landing gear for the block 40/50 increased in size, we refer to them as heavy weight gear. The main tire size was increased also to help compensate for the higher bomb loads. So much so the gear door is bulged on all the newer block F-16's. The block 30 was limited on its takeoff load due to to the limits of its smaller landing gear and wheels. On the extreme end here is some test footage of an F-18 drop test. This gives you a true sense of what Navy landing have to go through. All aircraft are tested like this also....

Correct, F-Zero, the landing gear and mounts are wayyyyy to weak for any form of carrier landing. As a matter of fact the landing gear on the F-16 get changed every 1600 flight hours if my memory is correct. Plus the tail hook can't handle a carrier arrested landing. The tail hook does get used for emergency barrier engagements but the runway cable unreels far easier and slows the aircraft over a longer distance than the ones on a carrier.

The USAF block 30's had a mod performed in the early 90's called Falcon Up. They placed reinforcement brackets on the outside of the frame like the 40. They tended to leak fuel a little but they did the job. The Block 50 received the same reinforcement but they were incorporated into the internal frame so they look smooth. The Metal fatigue issues the N ran into were also found in the wing roots so the same mod wouldn't work completely. From what I have been told by some folks the Navy tended to over G them quite often even though they flew with out external tanks. That takes a lot of over G stress to cause metal fatigue in an aircraft designed for 9 g's.

Yeah they retired the first batch which were block 30 variants due to metal fatigue due to the Navy Aggressor pilots using them too "over zealously"! Unfortunately there are no F-16's nor F-35's in the video I posted. It takes A LOT of stress to cause metal fatigue in an F-16 by the way. The Block 30's were replaced with Pakistani Block 15 models that were in storage due to a weapons embargo so they were never delivered. This is the unit flying out of NAS Fallon now. Unfortunately they are the underpowered Pratt and Whimpey models and also the last Block 15 A models built.

I didn't see any....lol they must have had a new active camouflage like the predator's had.