Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-35B Reaches 500 Vertical Landings  
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6536 times:

500 vertical landings reached by F-35B:

http://aviationtribune.com/military/.../653-f-35b-is-ready-for-sea-trials

Quote:
The Lockheed Martin F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft completed its 500th vertical landing August 3.

BF-1, the aircraft which completed this achievement, also accomplished the variant’s first vertical landing in March 2010 at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/photos/press_photos/2013/august/F35_500VLs.jpg

And just in time too; next week, USS Wasp and F-35B will go to sea again for further sea trials. This will be the second sea trial of F-35B out of the three planned sea trials for the F-35B variant.

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6352 times:

When is the trap landing issue going to be fixed? It's not about funds, as the development budget has not been reduced. Nor can it be a lack of aircraft. It must be a technical issue if it is taking so looooong.

User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5604 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6319 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 1):
When is the trap landing issue going to be fixed? It's not about funds, as the development budget has not been reduced. Nor can it be a lack of aircraft. It must be a technical issue if it is taking so looooong.

As I understand it the problem relates to the stealth requirements of the aircraft. Basically they need to design it such that it won't reflect but will still catch effectively and do so repeatedly with no increased wear, and designing that has been difficult.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6296 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 2):
As I understand it the problem relates to the stealth requirements of the aircraft. Basically they need to design it such that it won't reflect but will still catch effectively and do so repeatedly with no increased wear, and designing that has been difficult.

That sounds logical.

I assume several problems the F-35 faces has the same issue. For instance transonic roll off. In a non stealth plane that would be easily fixed aerodynamically. However you can't do that easily if you don't want to affect stealth. Or reducing buffeting. Can't change that either unless you also change the aerodynamic shape, which will affect stealth, etc...


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6266 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 1):
When is the trap landing issue going to be fixed? It's not about funds, as the development budget has not been reduced. Nor can it be a lack of aircraft. It must be a technical issue if it is taking so looooong.

1. New, re-profiled hook has been tested last year with land trials, with the hook catching 3 out of 5 landing attempts, and with the last two misses caused by the pilot landing the aircraft too far from the wire for a successful arresting. This was without the dampener.
2. Sea trials are scheduled for next year. That has always been the schedule, assuming availability of an aircraft carrier.

Remember, this entire issue was essentially caused by the USN giving their contractors incorrect information about wire behavior...


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3553 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6227 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 4):
Remember, this entire issue was essentially caused by the USN giving their contractors incorrect information about wire behavior...

we could debate that.. seems to me the manufacturer is equally culpable.. It's not like LM have never build a plane for carrier operation. Plus the error was in the bounce back following the wheels going over the cable.. that's a basic design issue caused by the landing gear placement. .

nice to see 500 landings.. however how many attempts attempts were required? (note: just a percent is bogus without knowing the actual number.. )


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6211 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 5):
It's not like LM have never build a plane for carrier operation.

Would you like to identify which aircraft from the below link is carrier capable and built within the last 25 years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lockheed_Martin_aircraft

Quoting kanban (Reply 5):
seems to me the manufacturer is equally culpable

How is the manufacturer equally culpable is they are provided with incorrect data? If you provide a builder with incorrect dimensions for your house is it his problem if he builds it to your spec?

Quoting kanban (Reply 5):
nice to see 500 landings.. however how many attempts attempts were required? (note: just a percent is bogus without knowing the actual number.. )

Wouldn't a percentage mean you could do a simple mathematical calculation to determine how many were successful and how many weren't given we know how many have occurred?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 3):
I assume several problems the F-35 faces has the same issue. For instance transonic roll off. In a non stealth plane that would be easily fixed aerodynamically. However you can't do that easily if you don't want to affect stealth. Or reducing buffeting. Can't change that either unless you also change the aerodynamic shape, which will affect stealth, etc...

Transonic issues on modern fighter aircraft can be managed by changes to the FBW software as was done with Typhoon.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6205 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 6):
How is the manufacturer equally culpable is they are provided with incorrect data?

What official source do you base this on? PB is not an official source.

The reason the problem with the hook arose in the first place is because of the inherent constraints of building a stealth fighter, said Burbage. The F-35 is the first naval stealth fighter and as such, Lockheed had the unique challenge of designing the jet with a tail-hook that had to be concealed when it’s not being used.

http://www.defensenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012301170010

Nowhere does Lockheed say it was as you claim.

Because the tail-hook has to fit within the outer mold line of the F-35, the device had to be fitted further forward on the jet’s ventral surface than on other naval aircraft, Burbage said. The result is that the hook behaves differently than on previous fighters like the F/A-18.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 6):
Wouldn't a percentage mean you could do a simple mathematical calculation to determine how many were successful and how many weren't given we know how many have occurred?

No, because we only know how many successful landing occurred, not how many attempts.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 6):
Transonic issues on modern fighter aircraft can be managed by changes to the FBW software as was done with Typhoon.

That avenue has been exhausted.

Buffet and transonic roll-off—wing drop in high-speed turns, associated with asymmetrical movements of shock waves—still affect all variants of the JSF, despite control law changes. The program will conduct flight tests this year to assess the problem, but has now reached a limit on what can be done with control laws, Gilmore reports. Further changes would degrade maneuverability or overload the structure.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/AW_07_01_2013_p23-592154.xml&p=2

[Edited 2013-08-07 17:54:08]

[Edited 2013-08-07 17:59:48]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6185 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 7):

What official source do you base this on? PB is not an official source.

The reason the problem with the hook arose in the first place is because of the inherent constraints of building a stealth fighter, said Burbage. The F-35 is the first naval stealth fighter and as such, Lockheed had the unique challenge of designing the jet with a tail-hook that had to be concealed when it’s not being used.

http://www.defensenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012301170010

Nowhere does Lockheed say it was as you claim.

Because the tail-hook has to fit within the outer mold line of the F-35, the device had to be fitted further forward on the jet’s ventral surface than on other naval aircraft, Burbage said. The result is that the hook behaves differently than on previous fighters like the F/A-18.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...05/the-day-of-the-unmanned-aircra/

Quote:
However, the X-47B did not carry out an arrested landing upon returning to Pax River. That could be because the unmanned jet was having difficulty making even that first trap it did the week before where the Navy showed off a video of the aircraft snagging a wire. Sources told the DEW Line, at the time of the earlier trap, the aircraft now had a 10 percent field boarding rate… So hopefully, this isn’t an indication of a major problem. The X-47B guys have had to redesign their tail hook a number of times now due to the same inaccurate Navy-supplied wire dynamics model that was partly responsible for the F-35C’s woes.
Quoting kanban (Reply 5):
we could debate that.. seems to me the manufacturer is equally culpable.. It's not like LM have never build a plane for carrier operation. Plus the error was in the bounce back following the wheels going over the cable.. that's a basic design issue caused by the landing gear placement. .

See above. And this was Northrop Grumman designing and building a aircraft, a company that is supposed to be 'experienced' in building naval aircraft. Incorrect wire dynamics data sent to both Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin equals two aircraft with tailhook issues. And NAVAIR approved the original tailhook designs on both aircraft, as they have oversight here.

As a result, the customer is the one that messed up; supplying incorrect information, and approving a design that turns out to have been faulty.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3553 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6148 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 8):
As a result, the customer is the one that messed up; supplying incorrect information, and approving a design that turns out to have been faulty.

Step out of the box.. LM has engineers and computers fro simulations.. the customer provides a requirement the the hide-able hook must capture a wire normally "x" inches off the flight deck. and the wire is there as stated. The manufacturer places the gear and hook to close to allow the wire to spring back to the normal position. Is that a customer design problem?.. no, it's a manufacturer's engineering and simulation problem...

The customer can only define the at rest configuration.. they have no idea initially what the use condition will be. LM knew that and played dumb. This may end up in court for cost recovery so they will do everything to make it a customer problem.

Now in an earlier thread, you noted that the tests were deferred until 2014 due to sequestration.. now it appears they found the money.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6062 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 9):
Step out of the box.. LM has engineers and computers fro simulations.. the customer provides a requirement the the hide-able hook must capture a wire normally "x" inches off the flight deck. and the wire is there as stated. The manufacturer places the gear and hook to close to allow the wire to spring back to the normal position. Is that a customer design problem?.. no, it's a manufacturer's engineering and simulation problem...

And the customer provided incorrect data to design the aircraft and approved the manufacturer's original design. It's not the manufacturer's fault when the customer provides the incorrect model for the engineers, computers and simulations to work off of, and the customer, who's providing oversight, gives approval to the manufacturer to proceed with the design.

If I tell you to build a house with one of the rooms to be 5m wide, you supply drawings that shows the room to be 5m wide and I sign off, you then build the house with the room 5m wide, and I later on find out I can't fit my sofa in that room because it's 5.5m wide, are you, the builder at fault for this mess up? No. The customer is at fault for the incorrect specs.

Quoting kanban (Reply 9):
The customer can only define the at rest configuration.. they have no idea initially what the use condition will be. LM knew that and played dumb. This may end up in court for cost recovery so they will do everything to make it a customer problem.

The issue is that the customer supplied a incorrect wire dynamics model to the builder to work off of, and then approved the design for production and testing. NAVAIR has the ability to independently model and test in simulation designs, and they originally saw no problems with the original tailhook design until actual testing showed that the design was flawed.

So, in short, the hook was built to a spec written by the US government. The government has had daily oversight on virtually everything in the design. Seems we ought to ask the government how they got this one wrong too.

Quoting kanban (Reply 9):
Now in an earlier thread, you noted that the tests were deferred until 2014 due to sequestration.. now it appears they found the money.

From Gen Bogdan's prepared statement before the SASC this Feb:

"A Critical Design Review was completed in February 2013 on a redesigned arresting hook system and modeling and simulation involving the redesigned hook showed a marked improvement in performance. Ground test of this newly redesigned hook is scheduled at Lakehurst, NJ in the 4th Quarter of 2013, followed by aircraft carrier qualifications in 3rd Quarter of 2014."
http://www.armed-services.senate.gov...013/04%20April/Bogdan_04-24-13.pdf


And on a related note, Lockheed Martin test pilot Billie Flynn is participating in a live Twitter chat August 8th at 2 p.m. EDT/11 a.m. PDT. Lockheed Martin will collect questions tweeted to @LockheedMartin, @thef35 or @BillieFlynn with the hashtag #LMChat now through Aug. 8. Follow the #LMChat hashtag on Aug. 8 to participate and join the conversation with Billie.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6004 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 10):
And the customer provided incorrect data
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 10):
The issue is that the customer supplied a incorrect wire dynamics

That is not what LM itself said the cause is:

The reason the problem with the hook arose in the first place is because of the inherent constraints of building a stealth fighter, said Burbage. The F-35 is the first naval stealth fighter and as such, Lockheed had the unique challenge of designing the jet with a tail-hook that had to be concealed when it’s not being used.

- Tom Burbage, Lockheed program manager for the F-35 program

I'll take his statements over yours on this. You may want to stop ignoring facts that are not to your liking as the facts are more stubborn and more persistent than any spin.

You fail to find any quote from any official or any official quote what so ever, to support your assumption that the government supplied bad wire data. Your entire posts are based on this false assumption.

[Edited 2013-08-08 08:31:51]

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3553 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5978 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 10):
So, in short, the hook was built to a spec written by the US government. The government has had daily oversight on virtually everything in the design. Seems we ought to ask the government how they got this one wrong too.

no wonder LM can only survive by being tethered to the government's trough..

Having worked with military programs with a more competent manufacturer, we simulated and tested before production, and occasionally went back saying "this won't work as envisioned" The Air Force looked at the data and agreed..

It appears you are saying because the military had people on site, LM is excused from stupidity.. Actually I wonder how many LM engineers realized the problem and kept their mouths shut.

Where are the capture simulations? Where are the stealth signature simulations? How many of the military observers have had any experience in what they are supposedly observing?.. Most government auditors I've worked with (commercial and military) only dig far enough to see that the company is following processes and procedures, it's a whole different crew that shows up for accident investigations..

No, regardless of who signs your paycheck.. LM screwed up because they took the word of some 19-25 year old kids with no practical experience over seasoned engineers and the taxpayers will pay.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5965 times:

kanban,

I am sure the specs the government has, is that the hook must work. However, the government does not design the plane, LM does, otherwise.....errr, the government would be designing and developing the plane. But this design is Lockheed's and they are responsible for it and its development.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5934 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 11):
I'll take his statements over yours on this. You may want to stop ignoring facts that are not to your liking as the facts are more stubborn and more persistent than any spin.

You fail to find any quote from any official or any official quote what so ever, to support your assumption that the government supplied bad wire data. Your entire posts are based on this false assumption.

Considering NAVAIR has admitted that they had to redesign the X-47B's tailhook, and had the Fleet Readiness Center South West redesign and build the replacement tailhook for X-47B, this story is collaborated.
http://lexleader.net/navy-rapidly-re...esigns-x47b-tailhook-test-failure/
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm...ction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=5114

Consider the fact that the design for the F-35's tailhook had to be approved by NAVAIR and it was, it was also based on NAVAIR numbers, thats how the LM came up with it. The X-47B was also NAVAIR approved based on NAVAIR numbers, and also had the exact same tailhook problems. Add to this that there is a report that the Navy supplied incorrect wire dynamics data to LM and Northrop Grumman. What are the odds? Two separate designs made by two separate companies have the exact same problems?

Quoting kanban (Reply 12):
Having worked with military programs with a more competent manufacturer, we simulated and tested before production, and occasionally went back saying "this won't work as envisioned" The Air Force looked at the data and agreed..

It appears you are saying because the military had people on site, LM is excused from stupidity.. Actually I wonder how many LM engineers realized the problem and kept their mouths shut.

The problem is that if the supplier is given incorrect data to work with in the beginning, the customer is at fault for the issue. It isn't because LM had 'got the design all wrong' in terms of wheel to hook distance - they designed a hook system that met all the USN design guidelines and requirements (with the active involvement of the USN experts) but, as you correctly point out, it failed on initial tests.

Your simplistic mindset 'it's only a hook and we''ve been building them for years' might be a bit simplistic. First, this is an arresting hook system for use on board ships, not the simple emergency systems fitted to some jets - it's a complex and highly loaded piece of design, and the basic challenge is non-trivial. On top of that, this one has to be fully retractable inside a set of LO doors - that added another layer of challenges. Add in whipping wires and a very variable set of engagement conditions, and you have a complicated problem.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3553 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5914 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 14):
our simplistic mindset 'it's only a hook and we''ve been building them for years' might be a bit simplistic.

It may be simplistic.. however the first problem was the bulbous leading edge rode over the cable instead of under it.. that is simple hook design. Yes, you can complicate the issue with talking about the whole system.. however the basic arresting principles are the same whether you have a retractable (stealth) system or an open one. The time it takes the cable to rebound after being rolled over should/could have been simulated.. but obviously wasn't.. even though they had to move the gear aft and the hook forward. it's the same kind of OEM error that changed the bulkhead material without checking the new material properties and stress loads. To blame everything on the Pentagon is ludicrous.. LM needs to be accountable for their inattention.

Don't know what you do for LM, however carrying the entire burden for their blunders on your shoulders must be a thankless task.

noticed your profile age went up.. should we have wished you happy birthday?


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5913 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 14):
Your simplistic mindset 'it's only a hook and we''ve been building them for years' might be a bit simplistic.

Looking at this statement, I am reminded of Monty Python's "Department of Redundancy Department". But I am not surprised, considering the source.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5900 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 14):
Add to this that there is a report that the Navy supplied incorrect wire dynamics data to LM and Northrop Grumman.

What official source is this from (I ask for the nth time)? And why do you continue to deny what LM itself publicly said about the cause of the issue? Is ignorance bliss? Your attempt to divest LM from the responsibilities of their blunders only focuses everyone' attention even more on exactly those issues. Your flat earth denials are not credible - to put it kindly.

Quoting kanban (Reply 15):
noticed your profile age went up.. should we have wished you happy birthday?

LOL. That was funny!!


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5838 times:

Why do the same people argue over the same non sense. This F-35 crap is getting tiresome. Do you people know that in the real world no one cares if you are right or wrong. My god....

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5734 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 18):
This F-35 crap is getting tiresome.

This is a discussion board. But if you are tired of this discussion on the largest military program in history, then don't read these threads and stay off them. Problem solved.



[Edited 2013-08-09 08:53:03]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5230 times:

USS Wasp and the F-35B has gone to sea:
http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/News/New...st-f-35b-night-landing-at-sea.aspx

Quote:
USS WASP, At Sea -- A key milestone on the path to declaring F-35B initial operating capability for the U.S. Marine Corps is underway.

The F-35 Integrated Test Force from NAS Patuxent River, Md. embarked USS Wasp, Aug. 12, for the second at-sea test of the F-35B Lightning II, the short takeoff and vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter.

Developmental Test Phase Two is the second of three planned tests aimed at expanding the F-35B’s shipboard operating envelope for the U.S. Marine Corps. The first shipboard testing phase was successfully completed in October 2011. A milestone many point to as a turning point in F-35B development.

During the 18-day long ship trials, two F-35Bs will conduct a series of tests to determine the aircraft’s suitability for sea-based operations. Pilots will expand the F-35Bs allowable wind envelope for launch and recovery, conduct first-ever night operations at sea, conduct initial mission systems evaluations at sea, evaluate the dynamic interface associated with aircraft operations on a moving flight deck, and further evaluate shipboard sustainment of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5055 times:

We have some photos while at sea:

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/130814-N-ML172-127.JPG

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/130814-N-ML172-323.JPG

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/130814-N-ML172-317.JPG

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/130814-O-ZZ999-050.JPG

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/130814-O-ZZ999-390.jpg


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4952 times:

How does the deck cope with that heat? Its like putting a blow torch to it?!

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4933 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 22):
How does the deck cope with that heat? Its like putting a blow torch to it?!

A couple of inches of steel helps dissipate the heat. Coupled with the standard anti-skid that is already heat-resistant, the deck copes. The matter becomes what happens over the long term, and that's where the Navy is doing experiments on new anti-skid coatings, which are more durable anyways. Current anti-skid coatings may last anywhere from 6 months to 3 years, while some of the new coatings are supposed to last under standard usage scenarios up to a decade or more.

The Navy is doing a lot of experimentation and testing in particular with the Thermion coating, which is a aluminum-ceramic coating process. The coating is 54% aluminum and 46% ceramic powder. This makes the substance extremely light, only 0.5 lb/ft², which exceeds Navy's specifications for type I non-skid. Application process by using a 3/16” diameter twin wire arc-spray.

According to Thermion's commercial documentation, projected life expectancy of the material is 50 years(!). That would literally be for the life of a typical Navy vessel. However, due to the high operational tempo of naval surface vessels and their extreme operating environment, the life expectancy will likely be significantly reduced, but even an 80% reduction would exceed the current life expectancy of the current non-skid deck coatings. However, Thermion’s process has only been used commercially during the past decade. As a result, testing data on the useful life of the product are not available to support the contractor’s claim. The contractor recommends a lifespan of 10 years based on the lack of testing data in a harsh naval environment.

Such aluminum-ceramic coatings would also have a number of side benefits as well; the Thermion coating is much lighter, only 0.5 lb/ft² compared the spec'ed Type 1 coating which weights 0.99 lbs/ft². This provides the potential advantage of reducing topside weight and its effects on a ship’s calculated stability. Furthermore, the Thermion coating has a higher coefficient of friction; 1.1 for Thermion compared to Type 1's 0.95 on a dry surface.

Currently, the Navy applies over 100,000 gallons of organic based non-skid deck coatings per year. The Navy spends about $27 Million per year on non-skid deck coating maintenance for East Coast ships alone. Any savings from applying a more durable coating that lasts longer would be of immense interest with the Navy as a effective cost savings measure, and because of the longer intervals between re-applications, means that instead of having the crew reapply the coating every few years, it can be moved to every time a ship enters a major refit, where they would be stripping the deck anyways, and no one will have to reapply the coating until the next refit.

As a sort of a reference point with the costings, I saw one example of how much it costs. The weather decks of an Arleigh Burke destroyer require 23,000 square feet of surface area to be coated with non-skid. During the current 18-month operational cycle of an Burke destroyer, portions of the weather decks are completely stripped and resurfaced. (It is very rare when all surface areas requiring non-skid get resurfaced all at once). This process can be accomplished one of two ways.

First, the job could be accomplished solely by using ship’s force personnel, for which no cost data exist. Second, the job may be performed during a three-month Ship Refit Availability (SRA) at which point the job can be accomplished by contractors or the Intermediate Maintenance Activity (IMA). The contract price includes a full- application cost of $11 per square foot. This price includes all of the associated material and labour costs to remove existing non-skid and install new non-skid. By comparison, Thermion coating's total cost is estimated to be around $13.50, and it includes all equipment, labour and preparation.

As a result, the per application costings is as follows: for the current standard anti-skid on a Burke destroyer, it would cost around $253,000 per application, and that would last anywhere from 6 months to 2 years. Thermion's per application costs is around $310,500 and that is expected to last 10 years. Over a 10 year time span, the standard anti-skid would cost $1,265,000, compared to Thermion's $310,500, which equals to a almost 77% decrease in costs for anti-skid coatings on board a Burke for 10 years. Expand that out to something as large as an aircraft carrier, which has 196,020 square feet of surface area to be coated with non-skid, the cost savings is enormous. And if Thermion's claims of a 50 year durability life is anyway remotely close to being realistic in a typical Navy use scenario, then the Navy is stupid to NOT be investigating a more durable anti-skid coating.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4625 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
USS Wasp and the F-35B has gone to sea:

Videos of the landing can be found here:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...bd941d-a8dc-4721-a112-017dc6147728



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
25 Post contains links and images ThePointblank : Recent update: http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...4de239-0201-4cd6-afd9-21344c382ecb But the basic bits are as follows: 1. 90% availability for th
26 ALTF4 : Hmm. Those landings are a bit more, uhh, hearty than I would have expected. Pretty cool!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F-35B Reaches 500 Vertical Landings
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia posted Sat Aug 18 2012 23:41:04 by comorin
AFM: F-35B A "wheezy Pig" posted Wed Apr 11 2012 05:24:40 by moo
USAF- Carrier Landings Possible? posted Mon Jan 23 2012 13:59:10 by andydtwnwa7
F-35B Gets New Lease On Life posted Fri Jan 20 2012 06:01:47 by KC135TopBoom
F15, F16, F18 Vertical Climb After Maintenance posted Sat Aug 13 2011 02:15:46 by ILS28Rite
F-35B/C To Be Offered For Indian Naval Fighter RFI posted Tue Jun 29 2010 04:02:41 by Shmertspionem
F-35 Succeeds In First Vertical Landing posted Thu Mar 18 2010 12:22:44 by yazoo
V-22 And F-35B Need "refrigerated" Landing Pads... posted Thu Nov 19 2009 11:12:34 by AirRyan
F-35B With External Stores posted Thu Aug 20 2009 23:15:20 by Checksixx
Report Casts Doubt On F-35B For UK Carriers posted Wed Aug 5 2009 19:04:42 by Art

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format