Besides the insult in the comment at the end of David's post by a nameless-coward-internet-troll let us look at some of the issues of a drag chute re: Canada and the F-35.
The briefing at the bottom of this post is the U.S. approved Lockheed Martin sales effort to Norway in 2008.
Spoiler alert:
Besides a whole bunch of unproven and misleading claims notice in the “notional” Block 4 specification: “Unique Norwegian Requirements—Icy runway capability—drag chute option.”
Chutes are not used just for icy runways. They are sometimes associated with aircraft that actually needed them as a normal part of landing because they have high approach speeds. Besides helping to shorten landing roll-outs, chutes also mean less wear on the wheel brakes. For example, the Lockheed CF-104: a single engine fighter--of which Canada lost over half of its inventory--(hint, they didn't crash as a result of enemy fire)--used a drag chute for every landing. Same for the F-105. The F-4 used a chute. Although it could have a slightly slower approach speed than an F-105 or CF-104 depending on a number of conditions. The CF-18 can get away with not using a chute in its basic design because it has a slower approach speed. Ditto with the Super Hornet.
Which makes some of the alarmist language from the “expert” in David's post sound a bit strange.
ALL runways in the interior have sufficient length and design so as to not require a drag chute, and why one is NOT on any F 35 version or any other modern fighter.
This is a modern fighter aircraft. "Combat proven" by MacKay's standards. What is that behind it?
Interesting to note: many F-16 operators did not use a drag chute.
Norway does.
The Royal Norwegian Air Force was the first air force to incorporate the drag chute, mainly to shorten the landing run on icy runways during our long and cold winters. As my colleagues in the RNoAF use the chute on practically every landing.
Canada does not have the number of long runways as the U.S. Also the F-35 has not been tested out in a variety of operationally relevant combat loadings. Weather/wind, the weight of the aircraft, altitude of the runway, temperature and the condition of the runway will determine how Canada decides to use a drag chute with the F-35; if it ever shows up. All of this will be clarified in writing in a procedure.
Given the huge expense of each aircraft, having a drag chute option probably is not a bad idea. Or, Canada can select the STOVL F-35B. It can do a short rolling landing or a vertical landing.
At over twice the price of a Super Hornet.
10 comments:
Don't really need a chute, the A model already has a tail hook (I hope!)
Having flown both drag chute and tail hook equipped jets, having a pneumatic hook makes you feel much more comfortable in the emergency situations requiring assistance to stop! Chutes can fail an awful lot meaning you can't rely on them to pull you up as routine.
Rest assured, the F-35A has a tail hook.
That is true - the F-35A does have a tail hook but just as has been shown with the recent failures in the F-35C trials of its tail hook system, almost certain the F-35A hook doesn't work and will also require re-design in both its size and location.
When the F-35C tail hook design was first displayed, experts and non-experts alike with experience in carrier operations and the related carrier suitability requirements expressed concerns about the location and small size of the hook.
The cause for these concerns have now materialised.
Land hooks and carrier hooks are different beasts. The fore I don't agree with your assumptions.
Tail hooks are great, but suffer the inherent operational limitations that come with being part of a system. IOW, if there is no arresting cable to snag, it ain't no help.
A drag chute, OTOH, is self-contained, and given the dearth of long, arrestor cable-equipped runways in the vast expanse of the north, and the pricey F-35's single engine, it makes sense to include a drag chute. Not just because of icy runways, but because having the chute may allow an aircraft in trouble to make an emergency landing on one many small, paved runways common to small private and municipal airfields found across the country.
Regarding the troubles they've been having with the hook in arrestor trials, it seems to me that the far aft location of the main gear relative to the stubbiness of the airframe, would prevent the cable from rebounding upwards quickly enough for the nearby tail hook to engage after being flattened by the main gear. The problem seems intrinsic to the basic design of the aircraft itself, rather than being due to any specific peculiarities of carrier arresting gear operations.
As for the insults made by a particular lil' cow-JSFan-boy: He's one of the more amusing and fervent LM kool-aid chuggers taking the daily short bus ride over to JSFanboy Central aka F-16.net.
If you're in the mood for a giggle, check out the faithful devotee's recent thread calling for lawsuits (or maybe auto-de-fe's...)against all and any heretical journalists (esp Canucks!) who would dare to blaspheme the sacred name ofthe holy JSF.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16449.html
Anon:
Being naturally curious and having a healthy thirst for knowledge, would really appreciate seeing your reasons for asserting 'land hooks' and carrier hooks are quite different beasts.
BTW, the F-35C trials showed the JSF hook to be 'incompatible' for emergency engagements with the BAK-12 system.
The issue of no arresting wires being present is not really too big an issue.
Having a drag chute does not mean you can divert into a 'municipal airport'. Unless of course that airport still has a 8000'+ runway.
What you can do is divert into a 6000' runway and hope that it deploys properly. Having flown a drag chute equipped aircraft, option 1 is dump fuel/payload to reduce landing weight for the shorter runway, option 2 is go to a longer runway that can support your landing weight and option 3 is execute a pre-meditated ejection before you try something stupid near the ground. (Considering a pilot has around $100million of experience and 6 years training, its still better to throw away the expensive toy!).
Now, with a tail hook, you are in a similar situation, though you can take the chance of catching the cable, because there is a much higher demonstrated probability of it working.
The idea that a self-contained system expands your options is a little misleading. Your operating base has a cable. Force planning means that you have a close divert with a cable. Not sure about Canada, but in Australia there are certainly plenty of diverts with a cable and all other 'municiple airports' are generally unsuitable even with a drag chute.
A land tail hook is very different from a carrier tailhook because of the engineering requirements of it. A land tail hook is only deployed in an emergency, (it only needs to go down). This means you don't need the extra engineering to pull it back up (ie hyds). A land tail hook is often just held up mechanically or pneumatically and can be dropped down with ease.
The stresses of a land arresstment are also much less than a carrier. The BAK12/14 system will bring you to a stop in about 1000-2000' at high speed. Also consider that this event is not routine for life cycle wear and tear.
Canada is buying the F-35A which has a tailhook designed for BAK12/14 and not the F-35C, so I don't think there's an issue there with the F-35C hook being designed for carriers.
I see a much better option than tinkering with the F-35 and screwing it up by trying to fit an after-market drag chute would be for Canada to just install some more cables at a few airfields. Maybe even develop their own 'disposable' system.
By keeping the system external to the jet, you won't run into problems like the HMD issue where it is preventing the jet itself from moving toward IOC. They can screw up the cable system and just keep flying while continuing to work on it.
"tinkering" is an interesting choice of words.
Briefings with Norway show that the drag-chute was part of their customer need going back to 2006 briefings if not earlier. It is part of Block 4 (notional). So I doubt that qualifies as "tinkering".
The problem with the F-35C tail hook, put simply, is "location, location, location....and length".
Refer Mil-A-18717C.
Same goes for F-35A tail hook.
Nothing that a little 'dab' of Mil-D-8708C ferreting around won't show up (as it did at Lakehurst a littel while ago).
"Now, with a tail hook, you are in a similar situation, though you can take the chance of catching the cable, because there is a much higher demonstrated probability of it working."
Gotta demonstrate that first, don't you know!
On the F-35C and its Alpha cousin, suggest you don't hold your breath.
Post a Comment