F-35 Fighters Are Grounded

[Tank-Ace]

So your saying the other 7 countries who are putting money into this project should just be thankful the US is letting them have some? Because Merica!

Not at all. I'm saying they should consider themselves lucky the USA didn't build it for themselves alone,  and say "who wants it?!?!"

Just because others have put in funding doesn't mean that it won't be built to fit the USA.

[Fish42]

Not at all. I'm saying they should consider themselves lucky the USA didn't build it for themselves alone,  and say "who wants it?!?!"

Just because others have put in funding doesn't mean that it won't be built to fit the USA.

  did you even read what you wrote then? you repeated what I said...

[nrshida]

Not at all. I'm saying they should consider themselves lucky the USA didn't build it for themselves alone,  and say "who wants it?!?!"

I especially think myself lucky that Tank-Ace condescends to talk to us lowly Europeans.

When it comes to employing "guerrilla tactics" by any nation with aircraft, no aircraft is better suited right now to get that job done then the f-35 & F22.

As I already said any arms race is perpetual and it's not so much what is available now which is the issue. A pure interceptor designed and built with the latest stealth solutions would cost a lot less also because the design would be uncluttered with compromise. It might be within the reach of more modestly funded nations by now. The technology is public, even we can grasp enough to make a sound design, and in areas where we can't there are other resources. I believe the Chinese demonstrated this with 'their' new intake designs.

I meant first person, that was impressive nevertheless

Danny carries a 30-mm in a shoulder holster for personal protection.  

Surprisingly enough the swing wing had only two real drawbacks and those are complexity and cost. When an airplane is built around the wing (I mean designed from the beginning to be variable geometry) like the F-14 was you really don't compromise internal space much.  In both the Tomcat and Aardvark, the wing and wing mechanism is a flat structure that "sits" across the back of the plane.  If you were to remove the entire system from the plane it essentially was a very broad but flat package so pretty space efficient.  

You are centralising the stress though instead of distributing it. I think the Tomcat and F111 had a huge titanium alloy box structure to carry the pivots. There are also some very difficult issues to resolve when it comes to stealth too. But I do like the solution in principle. Very interesting what you say about the flaps and aspect ratio.

Was the wide spacing of the engines as big of a problem as they suggest in the Tomcat Mace? I've seen a nasty video of a lady pilot I believe it was, losing one engine on approach (I think it was) and ultimately crashing.

I'm not sure what you mean about the F-23 WRT to thrust vectoring.  It had vectoring just like the 22.  Overall, I think it's a great idea and it makes the plane more nimble (able to change directions or "point" more quickly) but it comes at a cost as well.  I had a chance to see both the YF-22 and YF-23 together at Edwards during at the beginning of the fly-off between them.  The YF-23 looked absolutely enormous compared to the 22 but some of that was the "V" tail and the fact it was painted black.  I'd have sworn you could have played soccer on the back of the thing.  Again, I don't have anything against things like thrust vectoring or post-stall maneuvering, I'd love to have every toy out there but I just question the tactical utility of such features for the majority of scenarios and cost.

No doubt you are privy to more information than I, but everything I've read says the YF-23 had non-vectoring nozzles. I really like the shape of the YF-23. If you are trying to understand stealth technology it is the perfect subject. Some very subtle solutions in that design.

[GScholz]

America's defense is best served by having well equipped allies. Throughout the Cold War, America gave European allies weapons, equipment and training that they otherwise would not afford. Stopping an enemy on someone else's doorstep prevents that enemy ever reaching America. Some blame America for fighting "proxy wars" at other people's expense, but in reality it is a clear case of enlightened self-interest; by helping others defend themselves America ultimately strengthens its own defense.

[nrshida]

America's defense is best served by having well equipped allies.

Have you thanked Tank-Ace for his magnanimity yet GScholz? 

[GScholz]

I don't need to thank him, and he doesn't need to thank me. Nor do our nations need to thank each other; that's the nature of a partnership.

[Mace2004]

I especially think myself lucky that Tank-Ace condescends to talk to us lowly Europeans.

You're European??? Eyuuuhhh.  

You are centralising the stress though instead of distributing it. I think the Tomcat and F111 had a huge titanium alloy box structure to carry the pivots. There are also some very difficult issues to resolve when it comes to stealth too. But I do like the solution in principle. Very interesting what you say about the flaps and aspect ratio.

Yes, the wing box is very large but it's also broad and flat.  You do have a tradeoff but it's not like it's occupying space that would have been totally free since you'd still have to have a major wing spar structure in that area anyway.  As for the tradeoff in stealth, that's absolutely true.  Surface edges produce reflections and one of the major principles of stealth is to manage these reflections that's why aircraft such as the B-2 all of the edges are normal to one of two directions. In these two directions a radar return will be stronger (although still reduced by things like RAM) but the returns are managed in mission planning to avoid pointing them at radars.  The F-22 compromises its stealth somewhat because it's smaller (smaller means easier to detect by low-frequency radars) and its surfaces are not as consistent as the B-2's.  A swing wing airplane presents more problems due to the movement of the wings and additional edges that present problems.  This doesn't mean the reflections can't be managed, they can, just not as easily as fixed wing planes.  For instance, during penetration at super cruise speeds the wings will be all the way aft so it's signature can be easily determined.  While maneuvering any stealth aircraft would be more susceptable since you can't always know whether or not an edge is normal to a radar station.  That said, that reflection management is still only part of the equation.

Was the wide spacing of the engines as big of a problem as they suggest in the Tomcat Mace? I've seen a nasty video of a lady pilot I believe it was, losing one engine on approach (I think it was) and ultimately crashing.

It could be a problem (they're nine feet apart so the plane qualifies as a twin engine plane in the eyes of the FAA with regard to pilot qualifications], especially with the original and unreliable TF-30 engines.  This is much less of a problem with the GE engines.  Hultgreen is the female pilot you mention but the mishap was caused by her wrapping up the plane at slow speed because she was overshooting the approach course.  This is dangerous in any airplane and she had TF-30 engines.  When the engine failed it made recovery impossible but many single engine palnes are lost that way as well.

No doubt you are privy to more information than I, but everything I've read says the YF-23 had non-vectoring nozzles. I really like the shape of the YF-23. If you are trying to understand stealth technology it is the perfect subject. Some very subtle solutions in that design.

Actually, you're absolutely right, the YF-23 didn't have thrust vectoring.  It's been so long that I've though of it that slipped by.  It was a very unique desgin indeed and stealthier (and faster) than the F-22 although a bit less maneuverable.



[/quote]

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

America's defense is best served by having well equipped allies. Throughout the Cold War, America gave European allies weapons, equipment and training that they otherwise would not afford. Stopping an enemy on someone else's doorstep prevents that enemy ever reaching America. Some blame America for fighting "proxy wars" at other people's expense, but in reality it is a clear case of enlightened self-interest; by helping others defend themselves America ultimately strengthens its own defense.

Man thank you, someone who get's it.

[Fish42]

http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf

Airspeed limited to 550 KCAS or 0.9 Mach above 8K MSL. Below 8K MSL airspeed is limited to 500 KCAS

No weapon capability [either real or simulated]

No flight operations [including ground maintenance activities] within 25 nautical miles (nm) of lightning

The F-35 US-16 E-21 ejection seat and -1 Transparency Removal System (TRS), as installed on low-rate initial production (LRIP) aircraft 2 & 3, have not completed full qualification testing. In addition, the F-35 canopy panel fly-away model has not been validated. If there is an unknown failure mode due to incomplete qualification testing and/or invalid fly-away model results, then there is potential for loss of aircrew.

The F-35 fuel system design’s lack of a double barrier, when coupled with inadequate leak detection and capability for visual
examination of the seals, can result in fuel leakage and potential fire leading to loss of aircraft/aircrew.

LRIP 2 & 3 aircraft do not include the Martin Baker water activated release system (MWARS). Without a water activated release system, there is a risk of drowning for the unconscious crewmember post ejection.

Delayed, incorrect, or untimely aircrew response during a time-critical task will result in a potential error and Class A mishap. The F-35A has documented deficiencies in PVI (Helmet-Mounted Display, Pilot Checklist, ommunication, Head-Down Display). A comprehensive Human Systems Integration (HSI) assessment has not been completed. Therefore, there is no confidence that the pilot can perform critical tasks safely. If current PVI deficiencies are not corrected immediately, then risk will increase as capability/functionality is added to future LRIP Blocks.

Overnight temperatures below 59 degrees Fahrenheit, the design minimum temperature for the 270 Volt Battery Charger Control Unit (BCCU), resulted in four ground aborts and the loss of two student sorties, an unacceptable condition for combat aircraft. To mitigate this problem, maintenance crews put jets in heated hangars overnight. Moving jets in and out of a hangar to keep them warm involves five personnel for three to four hours per shift. The parking of flyable jets in a hangar also interfered with maintenance because these flyable jets occupied space that would otherwise be used for jets requiring repair..

I hope the planes are not needed to be part of any cold counties Air force or they will be needing lots of warm snug hangers for the jets. 

[GScholz]

What is the point of your post exactly? You certainly seem to have missed the point of test flying. The conclusion from that report:

"Given its many significant limitations, the results of the OUE should not be used to make decisions regarding the readiness of the JSF system to support training in an F-35A initial qualification course. The limitations, workarounds, and restrictions in place in an air system this early in development limit the utility of training. Also, little can be learned from evaluating training in a system this immature. However, this evaluation revealed some areas where the program needs to focus attention and make improvements."

[beau32]

http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf


Quote
Airspeed limited to 550 KCAS or 0.9 Mach above 8K MSL. Below 8K MSL airspeed is limited to 500 KCAS Cant comment on


Quote
No weapon capability [either real or simulated] Still in testing, but the capability is there


Quote
No flight operations [including ground maintenance activities] within 25 nautical miles (nm) of lightning Who in their right mind would fly around looking for lightning to hit their plane


Quote
The F-35 US-16 E-21 ejection seat and -1 Transparency Removal System (TRS)all our seats are -23's, as installed on low-rate initial production (LRIP) aircraft 2 & 3, have not completed full qualification testing. In addition, the F-35 canopy panel fly-away model has not been validated. If there is an unknown failure mode due to incomplete qualification testing and/or invalid fly-away model results, then there is potential for loss of aircrew.


Quote
The F-35 fuel system design’s lack of a double barrier, when coupled with inadequate leak detection and capability for visual
examination of the seals, can result in fuel leakage and potential fire leading to loss of aircraft/aircrew.I have had no problem finding fuel leaks on the planes

Quote
LRIP 2 & 3 aircraft do not include the Martin Baker water activated release system (MWARS). Without a water activated release system, there is a risk of drowning for the unconscious crewmember post ejection. Dont know about other test sites, but our seats have them



Quote
Delayed, incorrect, or untimely aircrew response during a time-critical task will result in a potential error and Class A mishap.this is any plane The F-35A has documented deficiencies in PVI (Helmet-Mounted Display, Pilot Checklist, ommunication, Head-Down Display). A comprehensive Human Systems Integration (HSI) assessment has not been completed. Therefore, there is no confidence that the pilot can perform critical tasks safely.if there is no confidence, then why would they even fly. we fly everyday, must be some confidence somewhere. If current PVI deficiencies are not corrected immediately, then risk will increase as capability/functionality is added to future LRIP Blocks.

Quote
Overnight temperatures below 59 degrees Fahrenheit, the design minimum temperature for the 270 Volt Battery Charger Control Unit (BCCU), resulted in four ground aborts and the loss of two student sorties, an unacceptable condition for combat aircraft. After this condition, we learned to throw a heater on them to keep them warm till we launched the aircraft. Will be fixed later.To mitigate this problem, maintenance crews put jets in heated hangars overnight. Moving jets in and out of a hangar to keep them warm involves five personnel for three to four hours per shift.Actually, it only takes us about 30 minutes to move one from spot to spot. The parking of flyable jets in a hangar also interfered with maintenance because these flyable jets occupied space that would otherwise be used for jets requiring repair..All out jets have their own parking spots here. Same at PAX

I hope the planes are not needed to be part of any cold counties Air force or they will be needing lots of warm snug hangers for the jets.Everything will be fixed in time. Everyone wants it now now now. Damn. You cant have it now now now. Dont some of the people get that? May be I am a little bias because this is my job, but come on.

[beau32]

Double Post.....