Page 14 - Lessons-Learned-at-Pax-River_Neat

How would you characterize what we have seen and will see in the F-35C DT
process?

CDR Murphy: For the C, when you look at DT-I, DT-II, DT-III, by and large, they are
very similar to each other. What changes is aircraft, how we have the aircraft loaded.
DT-I was just the basic aircraft with no ordnance. For DT-II, we added internal stores.
For DT-III, we're going to have internal and external stores on the aircraft.

The testing you saw on DT-I and DT-II focused on the handling qualities behind the
ship, landings with and without crosswind, launches with and without crosswinds, and
minimum end speed catapult launches.

Those kinds of tests are going to be the same kind of tests we do on DT-III.

The difference will be that we are going to do them with a heavier aircraft with external
stores.

Also, we're not going to have a whole lot of fuel to play with because we're carrying so
much weight in ordnance.

Question: The handling qualities of the aircraft have been clearly noted by the pilots.
What will be the impact of the performance gains by the aircraft in the hands of the
operators?

Briggs: The flight control capabilities of the F-35 have already made it clear that the
F-35B training burden should be much less than the Harrier, particularly in preparing
pilots for recovery aboard ships; and with the approach handling qualities in the F-35C,
there should also be less preparation required for shipboard landing with the F-35C ver-
sus the current F/A-18 platforms.

Carrier landings are demanding and require a great deal of training, with the pilot con-
trolling the proper glide slope, line up and angle of attack.

With the F-35 control laws, the aircraft is dramatically assisting the pilot, and the pilot is

now setting and monitoring the aircraft rather than controlling everything on the ap-

proach to the ship. Lessons Learned at Pax River
!1 3
Second Line of Defense
!