|
Lokasenna -> RE: F-35 loses "stealth" coating at supersonic speeds (6/12/2019 9:53:18 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rusty1961
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/supersonic-speeds-could-cause-big-problems-for-the-f-35s-stealth-coating/
Funny how that didn't show up in all those test flights.
Funny how it actually did.
"Both deficiencies were first observed in late 2011 following flutter tests where the F-35B and F-35C both flew at speeds of Mach 1.3 and Mach 1.4."
And upon actually reading and comprehending the rest of the article, saying that "F-35 loses stealth coating at supersonic speeds", as Rusty does in his title, is like saying "Man sitting in sun for long time gets sunburned."
quote:
ORIGINAL: Unnecessarily slanted article that is further misconstrued by original poster
However, a naval aviator currently in service said the afterburner problem may not be that troubling to pilots, who must frequently work around a jet’s limitations. The key, he said, is understanding how often the issue occurs.
"I think you'd do well to go back and look at all the times they used the afterburner and that didn't happen," he said. "We're talking about tens of thousands of sorties at this point that this aircraft has flown."
Other aircraft that the Navy operates also have afterburner limits, he explained.
“I think that number needs context,” he said. "It looks scary on its own, but [the Super Hornet] has afterburner limits. They’re not that restrictive, but they have them. The aircraft has an afterburner, you want it to work.
“But I would want to get context for that number: Does this represent 0.002 percent of all sorties? If that’s the case, I don’t give a sh--, and I’ll probably have 15 other things fail before that."
Bryan Clark, previously a top aide to former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert and now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, likened the limitation on the afterburner to similar restrictions on submarine and ship operations.
“I think the operational impact is not huge, since it only applies during a small fraction of the jet’s operational profile. In subs and ships, we have a ‘safe operating envelope’ that defines where the platform is engineered to operate reliably for a long time. We can operate outside the safe operating envelope for a short time, but there are risks to doing so. The operator or commander needs to balance those risks against the benefits," he said.
“That is similar to this situation," he added. "The pilot can be on afterburner as long as needed to evade a threat but has to know the risk of structural damage increases. The pilot can balance that against the risk of getting shot down because he or she didn’t evade fast enough.”
The most important piece will be how well trained the pilot is on the aircraft, he continued.
“As a submariner, I knew the risks of being outside the safe operating envelope and how those risks increased over time and would impact ship performance.”
Emphasis mine. The issues cited, while clearly rising to high levels of concern given the category of deficiency and the recommended restriction, occurred on (apparently) two flights.
And I'm not even an F-35 cheerleader. It's always struck me as inefficient and at least partially unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
