Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

SpazSinbad

SpazSinbad

Active Member
seaspear said:
Would the tailoring of the helmet have anything to do with earlier reported potential injuries to pilots necks particularly those of a lighter frame
Click to expand...
HMDS was / is always tailored. However there are now THREE distinct iterations of it - HMDS - HMDS II & HMDS III with now subvariants because of ejection issues (fixed) for lightweight pilots (who would probably be women). No ejection seat until perhaps the latest edition of the competitor seat from US ACESII UTC Aerospace Systems had the capabilities of the Mk.US16E seat for the F-35 variants (since updated for the first reasons above). Because the HMDS gained weight during the updates it was discovered that the initial HMDS III had the issue with lightweight pilots. There were three fixes: a cloth panel stops the pilot head from over rotating backwards when the chute deploys; there is a switch on the side of the seat specifically to be actuated by 'lightweight' pilots that will delay a function & the 2nd of two visors for HMDS III has been removed (day/night) but can be replaced one for tuther in flight when a cockpit slot is found for it (thus weight of HMDS III reduced). I'm interested in these pilot things for the F-35 so I have a tonne of info in PDF format/links to videos if interested.

BTW 'lightweight' implied that 'neck strength' would not be the same as that enabled by heavier (more musculature?) pilots. Dummies of various weights/sizes are used in the seat testing but inevitably some calculations have to be made to be signed off by the relevant safety authorities with risk analysis and other crystal ball stuff.

When the F-35B goes into STOVL mode their seat is placed in 'automatic' such that if the engine is being sensed as failing then the seat will eject the pilot without any other pilot intervention. This happens in less that half a second because otherwise near the ground the pilot has no chance to react as the aircraft will quickly go out of control. At about MINUTE FOUR exactly when a slomo ground based zero/zero ejection seen from the side one will note how the pilot is rotated - the cloth insert between chute straps prevents head/helmet over rotation for the 'irresistible' lighties.

F-35 MB US16E Ejection Seat Tests 1-8 Slow Motion Long Play

 
Last edited:
H

hairyman

Active Member
Just watching a show on SBS about the Concorde. What a marvelous plane it was. Even now the RAAF does not have a plane in its inventory that is as fast, well not since the F111 anyway.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
t68 said:
most likely cheaper to restart the B-1 Lancer line than turn the Concorde into something its not
Click to expand...
Starting either line would be massively expensive but in the case of Concorde the cost of modifications for weapons capability would add even more. Not happening, ever. A B-21 might even work out to be less once it is in production and 70-100 are actually built.
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
hairyman said:
Where did the idea of making the Concorde into a warplane come from? I just commented that it was a marvelous plane!
Click to expand...

I think that would happen when one refer’s to Concorde and F111 in a defence forum, speculation run rife
 
H

hairyman

Active Member
I see the arrival of the first two F-35's has now been put back to mid December. Why are only two coming to Australia and seven being kept in the US? Is it going to remain like this throughout the entire delivery of the F35?
 
oldsig127

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
hairyman said:
I see the arrival of the first two F-35's has now been put back to mid December. Why are only two coming to Australia and seven being kept in the US? Is it going to remain like this throughout the entire delivery of the F35?
Click to expand...
Eight will remain in the US at the end of this year because A35-010 is also due for delivery shortly, and that initial pair will only be here a couple of weeks later than reported as much as a year ago - scarcely an issue. The first eight aircraft will stay in the USA while we train and build up towards FOC.

The remainder will be delivered to Australia
...8 in 2019
...15 in each of 2020-2022 and
...9 in 2023

Those in use in the training squadron in the USA will also have been sent home by 2023. All of which means that by the end of next year more than half will be in Oz (10 of 18) and the build up accelerates from there. The stand-walk-run in practice

oldsig
 
T

toryu

Member
oldsig127 said:
by the end of next year more than half will be in Oz (10 of 18) and the build up accelerates from there. The stand-walk-run in practice
Click to expand...
On this topic; I was pleasantly surprised to see Google finally updated their satellite imagery of the new Williamtown facilities. Dated as the 1st of August, only 7 weeks ago, shows the now complete shelters and buildings of the core precinct. Still more to come but it looks like they're very nearly ready, if not already. :)

williamstown01082018.jpg WT_New_Facilities.jpg WillyTownF-35Facilities.jpg
 
Joe Black

Joe Black

Active Member
RAAF will soon be upgrading the F-35As
Evolving for the Future

A software driven platform, things get "obsolete" or become legacy too quickly, but on the flip side, upgrades will become more of a norm, and the ability to keep a platform stay relevant and sharp will become easier and more readily available.
 
M

Massive

Well-Known Member
Joe Black said:
A software driven platform, things get "obsolete" or become legacy too quickly, but on the flip side, upgrades will become more of a norm, and the ability to keep a platform stay relevant and sharp will become easier and more readily available.
Click to expand...
Think I would fully agree with this statement if what you mean is:

A software driven platform, as things rapidly become "obsolete", upgrades are the norm keeping the platform relevant and sharp easily

The extent to which the F-35 is a capability upgrade is hard to overstate.

Regards,

Massive

PS. I often see commentators on the NZ thread discussing all kinds of aircraft types to re-establish an RNZAF - Gripen etc - IMHO opinion the only relevant aircraft is the F-35 - either do it or do not - the middle ground does not make sense
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
@Massive, if the goal is a viable AF then I tend to agree the F-35 would be the way to go, even for NZ. If the goal is an armed fast jet for intercepting rogue airliners then less expensive options could be considered.
 
P

pussertas

Active Member
F-35 Ground Testing Shows Potential for F-35A Lifetime Extension
(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued Sept. 17, 2018)

FORT WORTH, Texas --- The F-35 Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin have completed F-35 static, drop test, and durability testing and early results indicate a potential for an increased service life certification for the F-35A variant.

The rigorous testing supports validation of the air frame strength and resilience to perform in the demanding environments it will experience throughout its operational lifetime and the final results will support fleet management and maintenance forecasting for decades of operations.

“The transnational F-35 pushes the boundaries of engineering and physics with supersonic speed, agility, high attitude and angle of attack, weapons capacity, vertical landings, carrier operations and much more,” said Greg Ulmer, Lockheed Martin’s vice president and general manager of the F-35 program. “Durability testing gives the men and women who fly the F-35 great confidence in the aircraft’s performance today and for decades to come.”

Ground testing includes a full-scale durability air frame of all three variants, which were loaded in unique test rigs and laboratories to simulate ground and flight load conditions during fleet operations. The F-35 aircraft’s service lifetime is 8,000 hours, and each test air frame is required to complete two life-times of testing, or 16,000 hours. The F-35A vastly exceeded the requirement by completing three full life times of testing, or a simulated 24,000 hours, which gives the program confidence in a potential service-life increase.

Maybe the hugh price will be lessened over a longer serve life in the RAAF?
 
P

pussertas

Active Member
Exciting Era Unfolds
(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued Sept 18, 2018)

The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has embarked on an exciting era as No. 3 Squadron now has its first F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

The RAAF accepted its first F-35A to be operated by No. 3 Squadron in early September.

Australia now has a total of nine aircraft. Under the F-35 aircrew and maintenance training program, the first eight aircraft are under the command of the international Pilot Training Centre at Luke Air Force Base (AFB) in Arizona, US.

Commander Air Combat Group (ACG) Air Commodore (AIRCDRE) Michael Kitcher said it was an important milestone for Air Force “as aircraft A35-009 is accepted by No. 3 Squadron at Luke AFB”.

“It is an exciting time for ACG as we transition to F-35A operations over the next few years,” AIRCDRE Kitcher said.

“While there are challenges ahead, particularly as we prepare for the conduct of Australian-based operations next year, I am confident we are well placed to manage the transition.

“Any issues we might face will be managed with the ongoing support of the JSF Division and Air Combat Systems Program Office.’’

AIRCDRE Kitcher said increased security requirements would present challenges for personnel at RAAF Base Williamtown, but the introduction of Super Hornets and Growlers had already laid firm foundations.

He expected security systems to develop and mature to handle the challenges.

“We plan to conduct the transition process with a ‘crawl, walk, run’ approach with an initial low rate of effort,” he said.

“Our flying program will initially involve functional check flights, ferry work-up and ferry flights, flying training activities in Australia and public relations activities.”
 
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Does the line the helmet is certified for ejection up to 600 hundred knots mean a pilot should not eject at faster speeds ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top