Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

TomcatViP said:
I would be surprised that unwanted retraction depends only of a pin. Not sure if that fits any sane logics.

With all the vaunted sensors and electronics in the bird, why not relying on weight on wheel data to lock the retraction mechanism instead?
Click to expand...
There has to be more to the story.

The F-22 has a problem with uncommanded nose gear retraction that happened at engine shutdown. I believe there was an electrical system transient during engine shutdown that somehow told the nose gear to retract. The short term fix was for the crewchief to go under the fuselage back by the main gear, then approach the nose gear from the rear to pin it before shutdown, carefully avoiding the inlet suction from the running engines. The problem was eventually fixed and this engine running gear pinning because unnecessary.

In this case on the F-35, the nose gear retracted well after engine shutdown, with the pilot out of the cockpit going down the ladder. Electrical power should be off at this time. I’m not a landing gear designer, but most are driven hydraulically to the down position with linkage going over center to lock the gear down. Pinning of the gear usually doesn’t happen until the recovery inspection, before any aircraft towing operations. In this case, some stored hydraulic pressure must have been applied to the linkage to move out of the over center position, then gravity takes over. What allowed the hydraulic fluid to flow into the gear actuator (failed isolation valve?) after power was removed is where the investigation will focus. Pinning the gear would have prevented the mishap, but only as a secondary method.
 
Defense Updates has just put out this video concerning four new upcoming AShMs that the F-35 may carry:


The U.S. Navy is exploring the acquisition of an economically efficient and compact air-launched stand-off anti-ship weapon. Specific variants of the F-35 stealth fighter will have the capability to internally carry four of these weapons. The Naval Air Systems Command issued a contracting notice on February 2 for what is currently identified as the Multi-Mission Affordable Capacity Effector weapon system, or MACE.
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how the F-35 could become a warship buster with a potential new missile in its arsenal ?
Click to expand...
 
TomcatViP said:
I would be surprised that unwanted retraction depends only of a pin. Not sure if that fits any sane logics.

With all the vaunted sensors and electronics in the bird, why not relying on weight on wheel data to lock the retraction mechanism instead?
Click to expand...
No, you design the retraction link to overcenter/hyperextend so that the weight on the wheels keeps the gear locked. Technically, the gear would continue moving a little bit forward on the F-35, instead of going backwards to retract.


F119Doctor said:
There has to be more to the story.

The F-22 has a problem with uncommanded nose gear retraction that happened at engine shutdown. I believe there was an electrical system transient during engine shutdown that somehow told the nose gear to retract. The short term fix was for the crewchief to go under the fuselage back by the main gear, then approach the nose gear from the rear to pin it before shutdown, carefully avoiding the inlet suction from the running engines. The problem was eventually fixed and this engine running gear pinning because unnecessary.
Click to expand...
That is more than a little terrifying...


F119Doctor said:
In this case on the F-35, the nose gear retracted well after engine shutdown, with the pilot out of the cockpit going down the ladder. Electrical power should be off at this time. I’m not a landing gear designer, but most are driven hydraulically to the down position with linkage going over center to lock the gear down. Pinning of the gear usually doesn’t happen until the recovery inspection, before any aircraft towing operations. In this case, some stored hydraulic pressure must have been applied to the linkage to move out of the over center position, then gravity takes over. What allowed the hydraulic fluid to flow into the gear actuator (failed isolation valve?) after power was removed is where the investigation will focus. Pinning the gear would have prevented the mishap, but only as a secondary method.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced that the F-35 NLG is of the overcentering type. Not with 4 such events in the last 4 years.
 
NMaude said:
Defense Updates has just put out this video concerning four new upcoming AShMs that the F-35 may carry:
Click to expand...
Or rather one upcoming AShM the F-35A/C can carry four of. And four's probably the interesting number here, because if you want an internally carried AShM with a 300NM range, just ask Kongsberg to stick the NSM guidance section back into JSM, but that's only two JSM's per F-35. So they're actually looking for something significantly smaller, note the 35Kg warhead, which is tiny in comparison to JSM and NSM's 120Kg, Harpoon's 220Kg and LRASM's 456kg warheads. 35Kg is more a scaled up SPEAR 3 than a scaled down Harpoon.
 
DWG said:
Or rather one upcoming AShM the F-35A/C can carry four of. And four's probably the interesting number here, because if you want an internally carried AShM with a 300NM range, just ask Kongsberg to stick the NSM guidance section back into JSM, but that's only two JSM's per F-35. So they're actually looking for something significantly smaller, note the 35Kg warhead, which is tiny in comparison to JSM and NSM's 120Kg, Harpoon's 220Kg and LRASM's 456kg warheads. 35Kg is more a scaled up SPEAR 3 than a scaled down Harpoon.
Click to expand...
35KG on radar antennas is a mission kill, which could put a ship out of commission for months. It also destroys fire control which allows for unimpeded follow up shots.
 
DWG said:
Or rather one upcoming AShM the F-35A/C can carry four of. And four's probably the interesting number here, because if you want an internally carried AShM with a 300NM range, just ask Kongsberg to stick the NSM guidance section back into JSM, but that's only two JSM's per F-35. So they're actually looking for something significantly smaller, note the 35Kg warhead, which is tiny in comparison to JSM and NSM's 120Kg, Harpoon's 220Kg and LRASM's 456kg warheads. 35Kg is more a scaled up SPEAR 3 than a scaled down Harpoon.
Click to expand...
35kg is probably good for blowing up Somali pirates and Iranian/Chinese FACs. It's definitely too small for anything over 2000 tons.
 
DWG said:
Or rather one upcoming AShM the F-35A/C can carry four of. And four's probably the interesting number here, because if you want an internally carried AShM with a 300NM range, just ask Kongsberg to stick the NSM guidance section back into JSM, but that's only two JSM's per F-35. So they're actually looking for something significantly smaller, note the 35Kg warhead, which is tiny in comparison to JSM and NSM's 120Kg, Harpoon's 220Kg and LRASM's 456kg warheads. 35Kg is more a scaled up SPEAR 3 than a scaled down Harpoon.
Click to expand...
Sounds similar in class to Sea Venom

snne said:
You'd surely need more than 35kg against Type 022s, otoh it is as you put it ideal against small-mid size Iranian boats.
Click to expand...
I wonder if those really require a weapon of this class to be carried internally.
 
Ainen said:
I wonder if those really require a weapon of this class to be carried internally.
Click to expand...
Martlet would handle most of the IRGC-N's fast inshore attack craft quite handily, never mind Sea Venom, SPEAR 3 or MACE.
 
snne said:
You'd surely need more than 35kg against Type 022s, otoh it is as you put it ideal against small-mid size Iranian boats.
Click to expand...
Sea Skua did fine with a 30Kg warhead against TNC 45s (270t fl), Polnocnys (800t) and T43s (600t) in the Battle of the Bubiyan Channel.

Not only is the Type 022 smaller than the TNC 45 (230t fl), its catamaran hull form is arguably more vulnerable to damage.
 
It sounds like they want something along the lines of the IAF Delilah. Note the word “effector” in the MACE name, which implies the payload might not necessarily be a warhead. I suspect the USN would like packages that can be swapped off the missile nose while loaded on aircraft like MALD-N.
 
Inserting ground lock pins should only be a back-up to landing gear that should stay self-locked down - in the ground parking mode - by itself.
The first layer is struts that lock over-center when extended.
The second layer is lock valves that go “dead” as soon as the pill quits s fiddling with the retraction switch in the cockpit.
The third layer is weight-on-wheels switches which prevent the hydraulics from activating when shock struts are partially compressed.
The FOURTH layer is ground lock pins inserted by ground crew after shut-down.

Master Corporal (retired) R. Warner CD, BA, etc.
Who worked on CT-133 Silver Star jet trainers, CH-124 Sea King helicopters and CF-18 Hornet fighter jets
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
So why did the UK not also buy the F-35A if they wanted to replace the Tornado and keep the F-35B to replace the Harrier force? That is what I have always wanted back when the UK joined the then JSF program.
Click to expand...
The actual RAF Tornado replacement was Project Centurion AKA "insert ATG capability into Typhoon".
617 Sqn is pretty much "married" to the Carriers
 
Josh_TN said:
Note the word “effector” in the MACE name, which implies the payload might not necessarily be a warhead
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a platform. The idea is that it will be able to host different payloads and perform different roles.

In other news, the US Navy announced today it will begin delivering packages for Amazon…
 
Ahh tools left in the fuselage from what it sounds like. A small yet surprising amount of ww2 fighters built would have various things accidentally left inside the fuselages.
 
TomcatViP said:
Not new, but add some details on the incident:

finance.yahoo.com

Forgotten Flashlight Causes $4M in Damage to F-35

Small mistakes can sometimes have big consequences.
finance.yahoo.com finance.yahoo.com
Click to expand...

Supposedly the flashlight didn’t show up on the tool inventory because it was a private acquisition by the maintenance staff. Something that small is understandably difficult to root cause without proper inventory.
 
TomcatViP said:
That´s interesting. Was there some greedy supervisor that didn´t allocate funds for appropriate tooling?
Click to expand...

I don’t think it is that insidious since how much money can you save from little flashlight anyway? Probably it is just a tool that the maintenance crew really liked due to familiarity and ergonomics.
 
However, a personal flashlight should never be on the flightline. If that specific flashlight was a better tool than the ones provided in the Controlled Tool Kit (CTK), it should have been incorporated into the CTK where it would have been properly inventoried prior to the engine run.
 
TomcatViP said:
That´s interesting. Was there some greedy supervisor that didn´t allocate funds for appropriate tooling?
Click to expand...

siegecrossbow said:
I don’t think it is that insidious since how much money can you save from little flashlight anyway? Probably it is just a tool that the maintenance crew really liked due to familiarity and ergonomics.
Click to expand...

Often it's not the supervisor, but the supply department that orders and pays for tools that simply refuses to provide something that is required and cannot be substituted for..

I ran up against that when activating my work center aboard CV-61 Ranger in Nov. 1985 - August 1986... Ranger had just come out of a long drydocking at Puget Sound Navy Yard, and when I conducted a full tool, publications, etc inventory during our REFTRA (refresher training) there were a number of tool items on the required list that were missing - I ordered them all, and then didn't get back aboard until the next August (I had not been aboard for the RIMPAC in July). That time we loaded our personal gear and shop equipment aboard on a Friday, and would pull out Monday for a NORPAC deployment to Korea etc, so many of us had driven there (MCAS El Toro was about a 2 hour drive from NAS North Island where the ship was)..

At that time I went through what supply had gotten of my order, and found one critical item missing - a 12-point socket required for disassembly of the FLIR turret for the A-6E Intruder (the bolt heads were 12-point). Supply had rejected the purchase request with the note "use normal socket" - despite none of the avionics shops, nor the ship's tool center, having that item (all anyone had in that size were 6-point sockets). I went to supply and explained the issue only to be told "tough shit, you figure out something".

So I talked to my supervisor and got permission, and when I drove back to my apartment near El Toro for the weekend I went to Sears and bought the correct Craftsman socket. When I went back aboard Monday I simply engraved the shop tool control info on the socket and added it to the shop tool inventory.
 
Last edited:
So how many F-35A/B will Singapore now buy GTX? It looks a good investment as far as Singapore's military are concerned.
 
FighterJock said:
So how many F-35A/B will Singapore now buy GTX? It looks a good investment as far as Singapore's military are concerned.
Click to expand...

At this stage 20 (8 F-35As and 12 F-35Bs), though I suspect this will grow to 60+ as they move to replace their F-16s eventually.
 
GTX said:
At this stage 20 (8 F-35As and 12 F-35Bs), though I suspect this will grow to 60+ as they move to replace their F-16s eventually.
Click to expand...
More to this:

1709123563378


Image comes from Singapore Ministry of Defence
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom