Chief test pilot gives brief on F-35

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Chief test pilot gives brief on F-35

Posted: 1/18/2006 8:49:09 AM EDT

Bring it on!

The first F-35A test aircraft was craned into position for the engine integration work at the facility on 8 January

Chief test pilot gives brief on F-35

Joint Strike Fighter chief test pilot Jon Beesley addresses the local ANA Squadron.
by Jim Jenkins
NAWCAD Public Affairs

Joint Strike Fighter chief test pilot Jon Beesley gave a progress report on the development of the F-35 to the Naval Aviation Foundation Association of Naval Aviation Pax River Squadron Dec. 9, in the Cedar Point Officers' Club.

Beesley, a former U.S. Air Force test pilot, said that one of the more impressive aspects between all three variants of the F-35 is the commonality. The bulkheads are all different, but the mission systems on the three airplanes are all 100 percent common, and the way the aircraft are supported is mostly common.

The three variants include a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft for the Air Force (F-35A), a carrier-based (CV) aircraft for the Navy (F-35C) and a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft for the Marine Corps (F-35B). Seventy to 90 percent commonality is required for all variants.

Beesley said the F-35C will have larger wing and tail control surfaces for improved carrier landing characteristics. The larger surfaces will enable the F-35C to make landing approaches at slower speeds than the F-35A.

One challenge facing Lockheed Martin in producing the F-35 is making all the control surfaces move via electronic hydraulic actuators.

"This airplane is a true fly-by-wire airplane," Beesely said. "From the flight control computers to the actuators, there is nothing but wire. Two hundred-seventy volts of power goes out to run very small motors, which run very small hydraulic pumps, which move the surfaces. There were lots of discussion about whether that was smart or not, but that's the way it is, and we're going to make it work."

Perhaps the most notable feature of the new F-35s is their ability to carry weapons inside the fuselage, helping with the airplane's stealthy design. The Air Force F-35A can carry two 2,000-pound bombs inside and two advanced medium range air-to-air missiles inside, and has a combat radius of more than 600 miles. All three variants carry more fuel than the aircraft the F-35 will replace in each service. The Navy F-35C has an approximate combat radius of 700 miles with the airplane's internal fuel tanks.

Beesely said that due to the ongoing refinements, the Navy F-35C would be the last to be delivered.

The commonality comes in to play in the F-35's advanced weapons and avionics systems giving the warfighters for all three services enhanced lethality.

The F-35s will be equipped with the multi-mission Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA), which has no moving parts. The advanced radar system will allow the pilot to effectively engage air and ground targets at long range while also providing enhanced situational awareness. An earlier version of the AESA is used by the F-22 Raptor and F-16 Falcon.

Also each aircraft will have the electro-optical targeting system and a new distributed aperture system working independently providing long-range detection and precision targeting and a full 360-degree infrared view around the aircraft. The DAS consists of many electronic sensors placed strategically at multiple locations on the aircraft.

Beesley also said that the F-35 is the first aircraft developed in a long time that will not have a heads-up-display. Instead F-35 pilots will wear helmet mounted displays.

"DAS is basically missile launch detectors," Beesely said. "We've got all this information in IR and these [sensors] will paint a picture. So basically we've got DAS sensors all around and they can look everyplace. You can take that imagery, with a helmet, you could put it up in front of your face and you can see in infrared everything that those sensors see."

Theoretically, with enough sensors on the aircraft, a pilot can look down where he would normally see his knees, and essentially see through the structure of the aircraft to a target directly below.

Another new state-of-the-art feature designed for the JSF aircraft is voice recognition systems. Selecting a radio frequency, for example, can be done simply by saying what frequency you want.

First flight is not far off and is in fact expected later this year. Lockheed announced on its Web site that all major structural components of the first F-35 have been put together and are awaiting engine installation.

F-35A1 should fly in the fall of 2006, Beesley said. The first STOVL aircraft should fly in late 2007, and B2 is expected to fly early in 2008.

The first Navy JSF is scheduled to fly in 2009.

http://www.dcmilitary.com/navy/tester/11_02/national_news/39041-1.html

Posted: 1/18/2006 8:55:22 AM EDT

[#1]

I love the idea of the F-35 JSF. In many instances, the technology on it is more advanced than what is on the F-22.

It would be nice if we bought 400 JSFs...or more.

Posted: 1/18/2006 8:57:49 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Theoretically, with enough sensors on the aircraft, a pilot can look down where he would normally see his knees, and essentially see through the structure of the aircraft to a target directly below.

Cool technology!

Posted: 1/18/2006 9:03:14 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Theoretically, with enough sensors on the aircraft, a pilot can look down where he would normally see his knees, and essentially see through the structure of the aircraft to a target directly below.

Cool technology!

O hell yea, that kick ass.

Posted: 1/18/2006 9:15:05 AM EDT

[#4]

Here's an interesting tidbit. The USAF version will have an internally mounted 25mm gatling cannon while the USMC and Navy versions will have an external pod-mounted version. I guess it will probably be a conformal mounting like the Harrier. www.gdatp.com/products/lethality/jsf/jsf.htm

General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products (GDATP) has been awarded a system development and demonstration contract to design, produce, and integrate the Joint Strike Fighter’s (JSF) gun system. GDATP is developing an internal and external gun system based a derivative of the GAU-12/U 25mm Gatling gun. An internally mounted gun system will arm the F-35A Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) aircraft variant and an externally mounted gun system will arm the F-35B Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) and F-35C Carrier-Based (CV) aircraft variants.

Posted: 1/18/2006 9:20:24 AM EDT

[#5]

Why the differences between the three services?

The different core missions not withstanding, is it (for example) that important that the Navy have an arresting hook version instead of the STOVL version simply to have the arresting hook version

Posted: 1/18/2006 9:22:20 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Theoretically, with enough sensors on the aircraft, a pilot can look down where he would normally see his knees, and essentially see through the structure of the aircraft to a target directly below.

Cool technology!

O hell yea, that kick ass.

Go watch "Macross Plus" to get an idea of just where this kind of tech is leading to. I've always been a firm believer in the "life imitates art" philosophy when it comes to things like this.

I remember a story that was in the book about the making of "Space: 1999". Some of the people involved in making that show toured the plant where Concorde was built. One of the techs asked who they were. They replied that they were in television. That lead to the inevitable "what shows have you done?" They hemmed and hawed a bit and finally mumbled "Thunderbirds" (among others).

They were swamped with techs and designers wanting to talk about the designs of the craft and their capabilities, their ideas for similar craft in the real world. Almost all were serioius fans of the show.

Posted: 1/18/2006 9:22:40 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Why the differences between the three services?

The different core missions not withstanding, is it (for example) that important that the Navy have an arresting hook version instead of the STOVL version simply to have the arresting hook version

The STOVL version is different enough that there are major differences in payload/range. The internal fan takes up a rather large chunk of real estate behind the pilot, where the F-35C (and F-35A) will have a fuel cell.

Posted: 1/18/2006 9:36:29 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Why the differences between the three services?

The different core missions not withstanding, is it (for example) that important that the Navy have an arresting hook version instead of the STOVL version simply to have the arresting hook version

The STOVL version is different enough that there are major differences in payload/range. The internal fan takes up a rather large chunk of real estate behind the pilot, where the F-35C (and F-35A) will have a fuel cell.

The Navy version needs a lot of stronger structures and space to be able to land on a carrier.

Why can't the USAF use the Navy version you ask?

Well all that beefed up structure comes with a cost. IIRC only two 1000lb bombs and 2 AMRAAMS vice 2x 2000lb bombs and 2x Amraams in the USAF version, no gun on the navy version, a gun on the AF version, and I believe the AF version is rated for higher G's.

I could be wrong on some counts...

Give it already is 70 to 90 percent common there is not THAT much cost savings to over come the lack of abilities when operating off land.

Posted: 1/18/2006 9:58:41 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why the differences between the three services?

The different core missions not withstanding, is it (for example) that important that the Navy have an arresting hook version instead of the STOVL version simply to have the arresting hook version

The STOVL version is different enough that there are major differences in payload/range. The internal fan takes up a rather large chunk of real estate behind the pilot, where the F-35C (and F-35A) will have a fuel cell.

The Navy version needs a lot of stronger structures and space to be able to land on a carrier.

Why can't the USAF use the Navy version you ask?

Well all that beefed up structure comes with a cost. IIRC only two 1000lb bombs and 2 AMRAAMS vice 2x 2000lb bombs and 2x Amraams in the USAF version, no gun on the navy version, a gun on the AF version, and I believe the AF version is rated for higher G's.

I could be wrong on some counts...

Give it already is 70 to 90 percent common there is not THAT much cost savings to over come the lack of abilities when operating off land.

Exactly.
And most of the differences are built into the airframe.
That means it's not a repair or spare parts issue, as the parts that can be replaced or forward-repaired are common amongst the variety of airframes.

Enough commonality to spread the development costs (except for the F-25B STOVL) across the entire series of aircraft, driving down the final cost-per-airframe. This means more F-35s, just like the F-16.

Posted: 1/18/2006 10:13:20 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why the differences between the three services?

The different core missions not withstanding, is it (for example) that important that the Navy have an arresting hook version instead of the STOVL version simply to have the arresting hook version

The STOVL version is different enough that there are major differences in payload/range. The internal fan takes up a rather large chunk of real estate behind the pilot, where the F-35C (and F-35A) will have a fuel cell.

The Navy version needs a lot of stronger structures and space to be able to land on a carrier.

Why can't the USAF use the Navy version you ask?

Well all that beefed up structure comes with a cost. IIRC only two 1000lb bombs and 2 AMRAAMS vice 2x 2000lb bombs and 2x Amraams in the USAF version, no gun on the navy version, a gun on the AF version, and I believe the AF version is rated for higher G's.

I could be wrong on some counts...

Give it already is 70 to 90 percent common there is not THAT much cost savings to over come the lack of abilities when operating off land.

See, thats the thing, the USMC Harrier lands on amphibious assault ships (carriers too sometimes)!

As far as my limited knowledge knows, using an arresting hook dictates all that other structure. Is it so important to have that 'aura' of "our ~~pilots~~ aviators gotta catch a hook"

[range considerations aside]

edit: clarification

Posted: 1/18/2006 10:14:31 AM EDT

[#11]

Two words:
Aerial rearming.

"initiating re-arming sequence."
*clunk clunk whirr whirr pffsssstttttttthhhhhhhhhhhh*
"rearming sequence complete"

Or
Fly into the bay of a super large cargo plane mid-air and have techs re-arm and refuel, then re-deploy!

Posted: 1/18/2006 10:31:06 AM EDT

[#12]

Have you guys heard any rumors of the USAF version having the lift fan drive of the STOV/L series, without the fan? I heard somewhere that it could drive a power source for a weapons-grade laser that's in the works.

Posted: 1/18/2006 10:38:44 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Have you guys heard any rumors of the USAF version having the lift fan drive of the STOV/L series, without the fan? I heard somewhere that it could drive a power source for a weapons-grade laser that's in the works.

Just on here.

But there's a ton of PTO stuff you can get for a John Deere, imagine what the DoD could come up with.

Posted: 1/18/2006 10:46:22 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Have you guys heard any rumors of the USAF version having the lift fan drive of the STOV/L series, without the fan? I heard somewhere that it could drive a power source for a weapons-grade laser that's in the works.

All F-35 engines have the take-off shaft used to power the S/VTOL fan, the plan is for the AF version (and possibly the Navy version?) to incorporate a laser. Power take off, its not just for your manure spreader anymore.

Kharn

Posted: 1/18/2006 10:51:21 AM EDT

[#15]

Theoretically, with enough sensors on the aircraft, a pilot can look down where he would normally see his knees, and essentially see through the structure of the aircraft to a target directly below.

This is an extension of 1950s technology.

Female pilots have to wear special underwear so the male pilots can not see them nekkid.

Posted: 1/18/2006 11:06:01 AM EDT

[#16]

And it converts into a giant battle mech!!!

Posted: 1/18/2006 11:19:08 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Go watch "Macross Plus" to get an idea of just where this kind of tech is leading to.

A real-life YF-19 w/ the full-view canopy & dislpay, & minus the "transformer robot-mech", would simply rock.

Posted: 1/18/2006 12:01:26 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why the differences between the three services?

The different core missions not withstanding, is it (for example) that important that the Navy have an arresting hook version instead of the STOVL version simply to have the arresting hook version

The STOVL version is different enough that there are major differences in payload/range. The internal fan takes up a rather large chunk of real estate behind the pilot, where the F-35C (and F-35A) will have a fuel cell.

The Navy version needs a lot of stronger structures and space to be able to land on a carrier.

Why can't the USAF use the Navy version you ask?

Well all that beefed up structure comes with a cost. IIRC only two 1000lb bombs and 2 AMRAAMS vice 2x 2000lb bombs and 2x Amraams in the USAF version, no gun on the navy version, a gun on the AF version, and I believe the AF version is rated for higher G's.

I could be wrong on some counts...

Give it already is 70 to 90 percent common there is not THAT much cost savings to over come the lack of abilities when operating off land.

See, thats the thing, the USMC Harrier lands on amphibious assault ships (carriers too sometimes)!

As far as my limited knowledge knows, using an arresting hook dictates all that other structure. Is it so important to have that 'aura' of "our ~~pilots~~ aviators gotta catch a hook"

[range considerations aside]

edit: clarification

What are you gonna do if the lift fan is broken, the fan doors won't open or the three-bearing swivel for the engine doesn't operate? The F-35B will have to land like any other naval aircraft, only with stubbier wings than the F-35C.

Posted: 1/18/2006 12:16:14 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

See, thats the thing, the USMC Harrier lands on amphibious assault ships (carriers too sometimes)!

As far as my limited knowledge knows, using an arresting hook dictates all that other structure. Is it so important to have that 'aura' of "our ~~pilots~~ aviators gotta catch a hook"

[range considerations aside]

edit: clarification

US Navies LHA(R)... the return of the Light Fleet Carrier....

Posted: 1/18/2006 12:27:57 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Theoretically, with enough sensors on the aircraft, a pilot can look down where he would normally see his knees, and essentially see through the structure of the aircraft to a target directly below.

Cool technology!

Cooler than you can imagine! When I sat in the sim a few years back I tried out the pilot/plane interface.....Ubercool!

You talk to the plane , it talks to you. Your helmet has full surround sound. When you get a warning of a plane behind you it comes from the 'direction' of the threat. As you turn your head towards the sound the symbology on the visor slews around too. You then see your Face Up display show the target. Look, tell the plane which missile to use and shoot. You can tell the plane by voice to switch your visor display between, IR, Radar, TV or a combination of them.

It's like the Firefox but without the 'Thought Control'... but they are working on that too!

ANdy

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:20:03 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

See, thats the thing, the USMC Harrier lands on amphibious assault ships (carriers too sometimes)!

As far as my limited knowledge knows, using an arresting hook dictates all that other structure. Is it so important to have that 'aura' of "our ~~pilots~~ aviators gotta catch a hook"

[range considerations aside]

edit: clarification

US Navies LHA(R)... the return of the Light Fleet Carrier....

img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/SHIP_LHA-R_lg.jpg

ooooohhhhh... very nice.

Or is it merely a refit of the current amphibious assault ships

edit: Googling reveals that it may be a bit of both

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:37:18 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

ooooohhhhh... very nice.

Or is it merely a refit of the current amphibious assault ships

edit: Googling reveals that it may be a bit of both

It's an excellent design concept IMHO...

LHA(R) details

Posted: 1/18/2006 4:10:53 PM EDT

[#23]

tag

Posted: 1/19/2006 2:48:37 AM EDT

[#24]

Interesting stuff as always Andy. The F-35 is gonna kick major ass, even though the F-22 is getting all the glory.

Oh, and for the poster who earlier was wishing we'd buy 400 F-35's, you should be happy to know that we'll probably end up buying 1500-2000 of them! The Navy and Marines will probably take 400 or more each with the USAF getting the rest. So there should be plenty of F-35 goodness in the skies in coming years.

Posted: 1/19/2006 3:44:02 AM EDT

[#25]

Maybe retiring the FRS-2 is Tony's way of getting out of troubling military actions

"You see George, I'd love to go and bash Iran with you, but we just retired our navy fighters, so there's not a lot we can do. I really can't send RAF Harriers in without heavy escort, and we don't want to be a burden to you guys..."

That way, he doesn't get his New Labour arse kicked by his old Labour communist party. Gordon Brown will be PM by the time the F-35 comes on the scene. Not Tony's problem.

Posted: 1/19/2006 3:52:03 AM EDT

[#26]

Jon Beesley was one of the Lockheed F-22 test pilots while I was part of the test program.

Posted: 1/19/2006 7:14:55 AM EDT

[#27]

Have you guys read about the JSF and the F-22 in the P.N.A.C?
It's really offensive, the PNAC wants to stop JSF's, and downgrade the # of aircraft carriers, but supports the F-22.

I lived in Dayton while the F-22 was being developed, and I am a licensed pilot... however I fear the raptor is a bit of a white elephant.

Posted: 1/19/2006 7:29:42 AM EDT

[#28]

Why don't they put angled decks on the new LHAR's? It would give more options to the USMC. Maybe even allow Harrier deployments off of them in small numbers. It could also allow Helo ops forward and JSF ops (landing or taking off) on the angled deck.

I mean its just deck space and a bit of a over hang....

Posted: 1/19/2006 7:43:02 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Why don't they put angled decks on the new LHAR's? It would give more options to the USMC. Maybe even allow Harrier deployments off of them in small numbers. It could also allow Helo ops forward and JSF ops (landing or taking off) on the angled deck.

I mean its just deck space and a bit of a over hang....

I think that will be a variant forced on the Navy by Congress when the UCAVs become a more mature technology. That and when they see the final bill for the CVN-21s.

Posted: 1/19/2006 7:52:30 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Why don't they put angled decks on the new LHAR's? It would give more options to the USMC. Maybe even allow Harrier deployments off of them in small numbers. It could also allow Helo ops forward and JSF ops (landing or taking off) on the angled deck.

I mean its just deck space and a bit of a over hang....

My understanding is that during Gulf War 2, the amphibious assault ships became "Harrier Carriers" after the Marines (and all equipment) went ashore.

jsut some links when googling "harrier carrier"

www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=6134

www.flagshipnews.com/archives_2003/apr032003_10.shtml

Approximately two squadrons per ship.

Problem is that the mainstream Navy gets real nervous about the mention of 'baby' carriers. Gets real territorial if you know what I mean.

Posted: 1/19/2006 7:53:18 AM EDT

[#31]

I would like to hear from Harrier pilots that are/have deployed

Posted: 1/19/2006 8:38:53 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Why don't they put angled decks on the new LHAR's? It would give more options to the USMC. Maybe even allow Harrier deployments off of them in small numbers. It could also allow Helo ops forward and JSF ops (landing or taking off) on the angled deck.

I mean its just deck space and a bit of a over hang....

They don't need it, it will carry 20-25 F-35B's JSF's and 25-35 MV-22 Ospreys along with 1,800 Marines.

All the aircraft are STVOL/VTOL.

ANdy

Posted: 1/19/2006 9:57:38 AM EDT

[#33]

F-302 >> F-35

Posted: 1/19/2006 10:44:27 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Why don't they put angled decks on the new LHAR's? It would give more options to the USMC. Maybe even allow Harrier deployments off of them in small numbers. It could also allow Helo ops forward and JSF ops (landing or taking off) on the angled deck.

I mean its just deck space and a bit of a over hang....

The Harrier and Marines' JSF do not need the angled deck, they lands vertically. They can already do helicopter ops at the rear while doing Harrier/JSF short-take-offs on the ramp at the front.

Kharn

Posted: 1/19/2006 10:44:34 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Why don't they put angled decks on the new LHAR's? It would give more options to the USMC. Maybe even allow Harrier deployments off of them in small numbers. It could also allow Helo ops forward and JSF ops (landing or taking off) on the angled deck.

I mean its just deck space and a bit of a over hang....

They don't need it, it will carry 20-25 F-35B's JSF's and 25-35 MV-22 Ospreys along with 1,800 Marines.

All the aircraft are STVOL/VTOL.

ANdy

Isn't that usually an OR on the aircraft?

Posted: 1/19/2006 12:18:57 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why don't they put angled decks on the new LHAR's? It would give more options to the USMC. Maybe even allow Harrier deployments off of them in small numbers. It could also allow Helo ops forward and JSF ops (landing or taking off) on the angled deck.

I mean its just deck space and a bit of a over hang....

They don't need it, it will carry 20-25 F-35B's JSF's and 25-35 MV-22 Ospreys along with 1,800 Marines.

All the aircraft are STVOL/VTOL.

ANdy

Isn't that usually an OR on the aircraft?

AFAIK this is the USN's ARFCOM model... you get both!

The "LHD plug plus" would be 77 feet longer and have a flight deck 10 feet wider than that of the Wasp class. The extra room would accommodate about twenty F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, along with an assortment of helicopters and MV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft. The "plug plus" name refers to the addition of two hull sections -- one 21 feet long, the other 56 feet long -- to the current LHD design. The 22% increase over the Wasp-class would provide room for the F-35 and the MV-22, both of which are larger than the aircraft they replace. The new ships would carry an assortment of landing craft and more than 1,800 Marines.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lhx.htm

Posted: 1/19/2006 12:22:29 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Why don't they put angled decks on the new LHAR's? It would give more options to the USMC. Maybe even allow Harrier deployments off of them in small numbers. It could also allow Helo ops forward and JSF ops (landing or taking off) on the angled deck.

I mean its just deck space and a bit of a over hang....

My understanding is that during Gulf War 2, the amphibious assault ships became "Harrier Carriers" after the Marines (and all equipment) went ashore.

jsut some links when googling "harrier carrier"

www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=6134

www.flagshipnews.com/archives_2003/apr032003_10.shtml

Approximately two squadrons per ship.

Problem is that the mainstream Navy gets real nervous about the mention of 'baby' carriers. Gets real territorial if you know what I mean.

Look at the PNAC, it's got a lot of brass in the navy hacked-off I've heard.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Chief test pilot gives brief on F-35

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us