Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: BaDkaRmA158Th on February 22, 2013, 06:24:47 PM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/business/new-troubles-for-pentagons-f-35-fighter.html?partner=yahoofinance&_r=0
Alright so at this rate no one has any operational stealth fighters! :D
-
Why can't they just modify the F-22 to meet JSF standards, at least in part.
R&D of the airframe was already done, biggest problem so far seems to be a crappy air system, which could be fixed. Tooling for production probably ready to go for the most part.
Who cares if it doesn't have STOL capabilities, we've done without till now. Better stealth from the get-go, super cruise, better maneuverability.
-
Maybe thay can borrow some of that Iranian stealth technology.
-
This plane is a terrible design solution. How can so much money and human resources and experience be poured down the toilet so comprehensively? :rolleyes:
-
Why can't they just modify the F-22 to meet JSF standards, at least in part.
Who cares if it doesn't have STOL capabilities, we've done without till now.
You answered your own question about trying to adapt F-22's. No VTOL capability. As for who cares and uses it, that would be the Marines.
-
And the Brits. They're not building two super carriers just so they can fly helicopters from them. I'm also pretty sure they're not going to want to buy any French made Rafale-M's for the Fleet Air Arm.
-
You answered your own question about trying to adapt F-22's. No VTOL capability. As for who cares and uses it, that would be the Marines.
Point is that at some point, costs and delays make it not worth the effort.
-
How can so much money and human resources and experience be poured down the toilet so comprehensively? :rolleyes:
Because that's the Lockheed way.
-
Because that's the Lockheed way.
:headscratch: Pretty good company if you ask me
-
Point is that at some point, costs and delays make it not worth the effort.
The concurrency production strategy is what's causing the cost and delays.
http://news.yahoo.com/f-35-warplane-costs-driven-production-choice-u-002357318.html
-
This plane is a terrible design solution. How can so much money and human resources and experience be poured down the toilet so comprehensively? :rolleyes:
Because you are privy to the F-35 design process? How can a cracked turbine blade somehow be the fault of Lockheed Martin's design solution?
-
Because you are privy to the F-35 design process? How can a cracked turbine blade somehow be the fault of Lockheed Martin's design solution?
If only the turbine blade was the only problem...
Actually the design process which includes the competition has been pretty transparent if you cared to follow it.
Anyone, even non-designers, can appraise a design and can (and should) be critical. Certainly with aircraft design there is specific knowledge which is inaccessible to ordinary designers and people, but you can see dubious design decisions at a much more fundamental level than this.
My impression is it has become a business / political venture which has lost the focus on the product to a disastrous extent.
Do you think the aircraft is a good solution GScholz?
-
Yes. The F-35 is a very advanced aircraft, and it has had a great deal of development problems, but the same arguments where made when the F-16 program went seriously over-budget in the late '70s. I remember all the news drama and whining politicians, and I find it amusing, if a bit tragic, to see the same thing all over again today. What most people don't realize is that initial acquisition cost is not very important; what air forces and governments look at is life-cycle costs. An acquisition cost of $100 million, $200 million or $300 million becomes almost irrelevant when the impact of those differences on the full life-cycle costs is minimal. Operating contemporary fighter aircraft is hugely expensive; comparing the F-16 Block 60, F-18E and F-35 the differences in life-cycle cost are essentially all within a 10 percent variance.
The media, and consequently public opinion, has not been kind to the F-35, but neither were they to the F-16 back in the day. The F-16 has been the milk cow of the U.S. military aircraft industry since the 1980's with more than 4,500 units delivered, and still is with production continuing at least until 2016. I have no doubt the F-35 will match, or even exceed the F-16's success.
-
The most glaring issue that I can see is that f-22/35 and the like are simply technical exercises. Why do the US need to have a new and stealthy air superiority fighter? Or the UK with the Typhoon, a pointless piece of crap however beautiful it is, because we have no one to fight with it. Are we gearing up for an air war with China? Otherwise I doubt tge Taliban are about to launch their new F15 killer anytime soon.
We scrapped the most versatile and potent close support aircraft ever made with the Harrier. I guarantee you the troops on the ground would take Harriers every time over Typhoons or the fragile F35.
-
...
-
Why do you call the F-35 "fragile"?
The F-35 is a bomb-truck. Just the kind of combat jet you need to destroy third-world nations.
-
Why do you call the F-35 "fragile"?
See OP.
The aircrafts fragility was not really my point. My point was that it is a huge white elephant and of no use, especially considering what it replaces.
-
Regarding the finance I only think it's remarkable they spent so much money on an obviously poor design solution. I think respectfully you are seeing an erroneous pattern.
The F-22/35 combination are components of the US 'defence' approach, which is based on securing air superiority over foreign countries. Selling it to other countries help pays the bills of development.
It's fragile because it was supposed to also replace the A-10 which it obviously cannot do.
I don't think it's advanced, I think it's complex. That's different.
-
Danny, there is nothing in that article that leads me to believe the F-35 is "fragile". It is still in pre-production. These problems are called "teething problems" and no aircraft design in history have been without them.
The Spitfire was of no use in August 1939... There are big, BIG, future economic superpowers that have shady track records when it comes to human rights and freedoms.
-
The F-22/35 combination are components of the US 'defence' approach, which is based on securing air superiority over foreign countries. Selling it to other countries help pays the bills of development.
Same as the F-15/16 combination in the '70s and '80s... The F-16 is a multirole fighter that has served many nations very well, including mine.
I don't think it's advanced, I think it's complex. That's different.
Why do you think that? After the F-22 the F-35 will be the most advanced fighter in service anywhere. If you are of a different opinion please elaborate.
-
Danny, there is nothing in that article that leads me to believe the F-35 is "fragile". It is still in pre-production. These problems are called "teething problems" and no aircraft design in history have been without them.
It's fragile because it's an enormous fuel tank wrapped around an enormous engine with no armour because it's overweight. It's vulnerable to small arms fire which places a minimum height on it's operation. This won't help the Marines. There goes the first operational compromise to one third of your target customers and why? Because they employed a poor design process and failed to meet the design brief. This is not teething trouble.
-
The DOD just needs to set up a contact with Incom. Incom then can start manufacturing X-Wing fighters. Any fighter capable of blowing up a Death Star with one eedy bity proton torpedo via an auxillary exhaust port just above the main exhaust port which is no different than bull's-eyeing womp rats in any T-16 back home, that fighter is a guarantee winner.
I hear on Correlia that another manufacturing company makes handy stock freighters that can make the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs. Just don't make the hairy co-pilot angry.
-
It's fragile because it's an enormous fuel tank wrapped around an enormous engine with no armour because it's overweight. It's vulnerable to small arms fire which places a minimum height on it's operation. This won't help the Marines. There goes the first operational compromise to one third of your target customers and why? Because they employed a poor design process and failed to meet the design brief. This is not teething trouble.
^^^ This. And the fact that it is incapable of replacing the Harrier, which is needed right now by troops on the ground. Apache is good but has limited availability in theatre due to numbers and servicing requirements. Not to mention its slow as hell. What we had was a transonic and tough little aircraft with a good payload that could get there fast, stop dead if necessary, support ground troops with extremely close in fire support, exfil and return to base for rearming in minutes. What is proposing to replace it can do none of this at twice the price.
-
Why do you think that? After the F-22 the F-35 will be the most advanced fighter in service anywhere. If you are of a different opinion please elaborate.
Advanced and effective are two different and often unrelated things. I've followed this programme with interest most especially from the design aspect. I could write a lot but let's start with the brief: it was supposed to replace several aircraft with one. They failed to do that. Despite appearances the F-35 is three different aircraft sharing a percentage of parts. Furthermore this aircraft will be unable to practically replace some of the aircraft they said it could.
You might solve such a brief by designing for the most restrictive requirement which would be the carrier based STOVL need (Marines / Navy. The minute they decided on the lift fan approach this became impossible. Most everything else stems from this poor design decision.
-
It's fragile because it's an enormous fuel tank wrapped around an enormous engine with no armour because it's overweight. It's vulnerable to small arms fire which places a minimum height on it's operation. This won't help the Marines. There goes the first operational compromise to one third of your target customers and why? Because they employed a poor design process and failed to meet the design brief. This is not teething trouble.
No fighter has armored fuel tanks or engines. Even the A-10 only has armor around the cockpit (the titanium "bathtub") and is susceptible to ground fire. The AV-8 that it replaces in service with the U.S. Marines is far more "fragile". The A-10 will probably be retired before it can be replaced by the F-35. The last remaining A-10 squadrons were almost killed off last year by the DoD with only the U.S. Congress delaying it.
-
The DOD just needs to set up a contact with Incom. Incom then can start manufacturing X-Wing fighters. Any fighter capable of blowing up a Death Star with one eedy bity proton torpedo via an auxillary exhaust port just above the main exhaust port which is no different than bull's-eyeing womp rats in any T-16 back home, that fighter is a guarantee winner.
I hear on Correlia that another manufacturing company makes handy stock freighters that can make the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs. Just don't make the hairy co-pilot angry.
:rofl :rofl :rofl Excellent
-
No fighter has armored fuel tanks or engines. Even the A-10 only has armor around the cockpit (the titanium "bathtub") and is susceptible to ground fire. The AV-8 that it replaces in service with the U.S. Marines is far more "fragile". The A-10 will probably be retired before it can be replaced by the F-35. The last remaining A-10 squadrons were almost killed off last year by the DoD with only the U.S. Congress delaying it.
I understood the A-10 to have self sealing tanks and sufficient system redundancy to take quite a pounding. The engines are protected primarily by placement. It's an excellent design. They consulted Rudel you know :old:
-
I understood the A-10 to have self sealing tanks and sufficient system redundancy to take quite a pounding. The engines are protected primarily by placement. It's an excellent design. They consulted Rudel you know :old:
It is an excellent design, but it is 40 years old and not very survivable in a world with MANPADS. I suppose it is still useful if you're only fighting sheep molesters in some backwater -stan.
-
Advanced and effective are two different and often unrelated things. I've followed this programme with interest most especially from the design aspect. I could write a lot but let's start with the brief: it was supposed to replace several aircraft with one. They failed to do that. Despite appearances the F-35 is three different aircraft sharing a percentage of parts. Furthermore this aircraft will be unable to practically replace some of the aircraft they said it could.
You might solve such a brief by designing for the most restrictive requirement which would be the carrier based STOVL need (Marines / Navy. The minute they decided on the lift fan approach this became impossible. Most everything else stems from this poor design decision.
The various versions being "identical" defeats the purpose; parts commonality is what's important. Especially the pars which will need constant replacing during the 50+ year lifespan.
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f35_technology_commonality.jpg)
There will be a lot of manufacturing and fabrication savings even with the parts unique to a single variant. Take, for instance, the wing skins which are shown in purple in the graphic above, which denotes unique. The same designers designed those three wing skins, and the same supplier fabricates those skins. Same design methods, same materials, same fabrication methods (same repair techniques). This may not seem like much but this is tremendously important in a high-rate manufacturing environment. The part numbers for these skins are virtually identical, which helps the factory recognizes parts and build sequences (which is critical in a stationized work setting). Same goes for assembly of the wing skin to substructure in the factory. The same story can be written for virtually every major structural part in the airframe, regardless of version.
-
I understood the A-10 to have self sealing tanks and sufficient system redundancy to take quite a pounding...
Missed that one: All modern fighters have self-sealing fuel tanks and fire suppression systems. The F-16, for example, has quadruple flight control redundancy. The only weakness I can see is the single engine.
-
It's still essentially three separate models. Imagine the manufacturing logistics and parts numbers involved. The design brief could have been solved with one aircraft, had they employed a more holistic design approach. That is my main point.
I'm only discussing design here, I am well aware of the business aspect which I must note often encourages complication.
-
Missed that one: All modern fighters have self-sealing fuel tanks and fire suppression systems. The F-16, for example, has quadruple flight control redundancy. The only weakness I can see is the single engine.
Np, it's an interesting discussion. Right up to where the nationalists arrive and start attacking me for being critical :uhoh
-
Well, they're not up yet. You still have a couple of hours... ;)
-
I might have a bash and see if I can design a better solution. I think I'll start with a one-size-fits-all propulsion system.
-
Antigrav?
-
No I'll use feasible technology. I'll even bear cost in mind. That's not usually my theme :banana:
-
Good luck! :aok
-
This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbjiSKfDURY
Will be replaced by this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oyCzT6sB_4
Definite improvement... :aok
-
The F-22 and the F-35 represent the follies of American hubris. It is not that the technology is 'A Bridge Too Far' but the cost. All costs figured these planes cost over $500 million and $400 million a piece, respectively. No nation can survive those costs!
We need to scrap both, accept the loss but no more loses. We then need to restart the F-15 and F-16 lines. Stealth is great. Having a plane that can actually fly in combat as opposed to being grounded is even greater.
-
Over the life-cycle time of 50 years operating a fleet of F-16 is not going to be noticeable cheaper than operating F-35s. Initial acquisition costs is only a minute part of the overall cost of operating modern combat aircraft.
My country, a small country with just five million people, are buying 50+ F-35s. Our current similarly sized fleet of F-16s needs replacing. No matter what we do our F-16s will be ending their service life in the next 15 years. The F-16s will be phased out, gradually being replaced by F-35s. If the acquisition cost of the F-35 increases, it will simply just extend the replacement timespan.
If a tiny country like Norway can buy 50 of these jets within our tiny military budget... What's the problem for the mighty USAF/USN?
-
Also, the flyaway costs for the F-35 are high... However, not so high as many believe. When the F-16 was new it had a “unit recurring flyaway” cost of only $8 million. However the USD isn't what it used to be (no currency is). A top of the line Block 60 F-16E/F will cost you about $100 million today. The unit recurring flyaway cost for the air force variant of F-35 (the one we're buying) fell below $150 million in the third low-rate production lot and will fall below $100 million in the fifth lot currently being negotiated. By the time its gets to the tenth production lot, the recurring flyaway cost of the most common variant will be approaching what second-hand F-16 and F-18 fighters sell for today.
-
Remember when the Navy bought that overmodeled, oversized, overpriced, experimental "do all" swing wing contraption? Remember all those crashes after it was introduced?
What a disaster that turned out to be.
(http://a9.vietbao.vn/images/vn975/the-gioi/75261320-12_2.jpg)
-
A single training flight in a modern fighter can easily cost upwards of $20,000. Half of that being just the fuel. After about 50 flights in a F-35 you'd have spent more money on fuel and maintenance than on buying the aircraft. The USAF flies hundreds of sorties every day...
-
Missed that one: All modern fighters have self-sealing fuel tanks and fire suppression systems. The F-16, for example, has quadruple flight control redundancy. The only weakness I can see is the single engine.
Again, Harrier only has a single engine and it perfoms exceptionally well
-
This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbjiSKfDURY
Will be replaced by this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oyCzT6sB_4
Definite improvement... :aok
It can't replace the A-10 because it has no big gun, carries a pathetic ordinance load, has very limited loiter time and can't take any damage at all. Stand off point and click cannot support troops like a big fat flying tank who can put eyes and ordinance on the target or even a big burst of 30-mm angry bees.
They should refit the A-10s, roll back the airframes or even manufacture new ones employing composites and the latest avionics.
-
RPM, I thought the F14 was one of the FEW planes procured that was focused primarily on A2A combat, or a "single" job as opposed to many like the F16/F18 etc. I'd always read that the F15A and C as well as the F14 were purpose built, the former a Fighter, the later a fleet interceptor? I know that they both had the capability to drop bombs, and in later life the F14 had very good precision guided bomb dropping ability, and the F15E of course grew out of the F15 A, but wasn't the Tomcat program initially all about focusing on killing Soviet bombers, cruise missiles, and the odd long range fighter escort out at sea?
I'm not trying to start an argument with you, I don't know enough about the subject to be an expert, but I'm interested in what reasons you have for specifically saying that the F14 program was a disaster? I read somewhere recently that the early engines were responsible for over a third of the airframe loses with the F14A's, and that can obviously be laid in large part at the door of the manufacturer of those power plants, which I realize is a huge part of the fighter, it's beating heart. Despite this I'd always had the impression that the Navy was happy with what they got out of the F14, and that the F18, even the Super Hornet, made a poor replacement.
Gsholz, I've always admired Norway's military, in particular it's air force. Canada has participated in a ton of exercises with you guys back when you secured the Northern flank vs the Soviets, and always kept excellent relations and considered Norway a strong ally and great training partner. It's ridiculous that Canada with 35 million people and our economy is planning on buying only 65 F35's, if the sale EVEN goes through now, when Norway is buying over 50. Our military is getting pressure from all corners to find "alternatives", but our RCAF needs a jack of all trades,and even if the F22 was available, it wouldn't suit us due to the limited attack capability. The Grippen, Typhoon, Super Hornet, Rafale...they are all gen 4 or 4.5 fighters not much better than our upgraded F18's in terms of capability. The only real option out there is the F35 for us, take it or leave it. Our fighters are TIMED OUT. Some are approaching 7 and 8 thousand hours on their airframes.
This is a quote from a Calgary board where I guy I know who works ground crew, radar tech for our CF18 fleet.
You have no idea how much maintenance it takes to keep one flying, its slowly becoming the sea king of the fighter world. Available parts are decreasing, things are starting to break that we've never seen before and there are no known fixes. The fleet doesn't have very much time left - 5 years tops.
One point he also made is that the F35 will have 55% greater fuel capacity internally than the F18, and in a country that is vast like Canada, this alone is a huge positive for the RCAF. Is it going to be perfect? No. Will there be even more teething problems. Yes, that's just how procurement works now a days I guess.
-
Remember when the Navy bought that overmodeled, oversized, overpriced, experimental "do all" swing wing contraption? Remember all those crashes after it was introduced?
What a disaster that turned out to be.
(http://a9.vietbao.vn/images/vn975/the-gioi/75261320-12_2.jpg)
Yeah, I have a few hours in that piece of trash, a real disaster. It was so bad that it was only the fastest fighter in the US military's inventory and could only launch from a CV with more ordnance than a B-17. Pathetic. Another huge part of the disaster was that it was the only fighter in the world that could engage up to six targets at the same time and at ranges triple those of other fighters. Who the heck wants to do that? Guns, baby, it's all about guns! And I don't know if they thought they'd run out of places to store fuel on the ground but someone had the bright idea of hiding 20,000lbs of it in an airplane. Good thing they made it so big otherwise they'd have been unable to hide all that gas in it. The downside was that to burn it all up they made us fly 500 miles away from the boat all by ourselves and thousands of miles from the nearest land with nothing but a bunch of Phoenix, Sparrow, and Sidewinder missiles (and puny 20MM rotary cannon) to defend ourselves. I'll tell you that sucked because it got awful lonely (that's why I really think they made it a two-seater, so pilots won't get lonely). Of course sometimes, we flew a thousand miles to a target overland which is scary because if you eject there's no water to land in. Unfortunately, TOPGUN had it wrong, you can't just go into a flat spin and head out to sea!
And then there that rube goldberg "experimental" contraption of a swing wing, wow, dude, you are so right, did that ever suck! I don't know what Grumman was thinking when it decided to make the F-14 lighter and more efficient with those moving thingiees that don't stay where they're supposed to stay. What did they think they were doing, building a bird or did they just run out of rivits to properly fasten those things into place? Jeeze! With that darn wing spread out the thing thought it was a sail plane and kept wanting to turn and turn and turn. It turned with F-4's and F-5's and F-16's and F-15's, and anything else out there. That sucked because all that turning always made me sweaty and tired and I hate being sweaty and tired. With the darn wings back you could hardly see the wingtips which scared me. It was like "how the heck is this hunk of junk flying without wings?" When you thought about it you also realized that without the wings sticking out there isn't enough drag to keep you slow which means, YES you went even faster just like a runaway rollercoaster and who wants to be in one of those? Who wants to be in a zoom climb to over 50,000 ft at Mach 1.4 and look out the side and see nothing but air and a curved horizion? Not me, I'll tell you, that is scary shxt! And, as if all that crap wasnt enough of a problem, they kept wanting us to takeoff AND land on a darned boat with this turd! Christ on a cross, what were they thinking? I don't think that I have to mention that boats don't have liquor or golf courses or shopping malls. Sucky, sucky, sucky.
Then the plane got old giving the Navy the opportunity to really screw it up by giving it new engines as if being the fastest isn't scary enough! It was already fast and now they made it accelerate like a raped ape and you know what they say about raped apes. THEY ARE NOT HAPPY CAMPERS! It was also inflexible, so inflexible that the Navy decided to add air-to-ground capabilities to it when it was half-way through its service life. What a joke! You know what they say about old dogs and new tricks and they're going and turn this hunk of junk into a trash hauler. Sure, it had better bombing accuracy and loiter time while carrying more ordnance and spent less time on the tanker and more over the target area than the Hornet in Afghanistan but who the heck wants to do air-to-ground? What a sucky mission, you got every swinging dick on the ground shooting at you and that's just plain icky.
Yeah, that plane really, really sucked. We really would have been much better off if we had just bought the F-111 that SECDEF McNamara wanted the Navy to buy with the Air Force. Given how sucky it was I never did figure out why it stayed around for 36 years. Looking back I guess I just didn't realize how totally screwed I was and just how lucky I am to have survived that disaster. I suppose my perspective was skewed by youthful exuberance and ignorance or maybe it was that time I came from from our two week ACM readiness program with an 18-1 kill ratio in that hunk of junk. I'll just count myself lucky to be one of the few that survived. :salute :D :D :D
-
Waste of money.
-
Honestly, I just don't get why they can't use existing work, and improve on it. Or just make two versions of the F-22, one with the full suite, the other a more stripped-down multirole platform.
Unit cost can drop a lot if you crank out more than a few hundred.
-
Honestly, I just don't get why they can't use existing work, and improve on it. Or just make two versions of the F-22, one with the full suite, the other a more stripped-down multirole platform.
Unit cost can drop a lot if you crank out more than a few hundred.
Because of the compromises involved with making an aircraft that fulfills multiple roles. About the only way you could do everything would be to take the most difficult, the VTOL/STOVL version for everybody. Unfortunately, that means that it's heavier and has a significantly shorter range than any of the other versions. It would have to have the complex fan and pivoting nozzle of the VTOL/STOVL and still have to have the bigger wing and heavier landing gear and tailhook of the CV version along with both a Navy probe and USAF boom receptacle of the USAF for refueling. All of the added weight would mean they'd have to build an even more powerful version of the VTOL engine and since greater power means more fuel use either accept reduced range and payload or they'd have to make it bigger for more fuel which makes it heavier....etc., etc., etc. It's a vicious circle and such a plane would be an utter failure.
I'm not a big fan of the F-35 because of its single engine. I've always laughed at the idea that P&W could build an engine they claimed would never fail and wouldn't want to be 200nm from the boat when the failure (that couldn't happen) happens. Also, the turbine problems simply demonstrate that even a modern engine designed for the maximum performance requirements of a tactical jet fighter is so highly stressed that they will have failures. I don't doubt that they'll fix this problem but I still don't like the single engine concept because there are just too many ways a fighter engine can and will fail. That said, this is where we are. There are no alternatives to the F-35 and, thanks to cutbacks, no backup engine to throw in it so we are where we are. Either build these planes or accept a second rate tactical air force.
-
It can't replace the A-10 because it has no big gun, carries a pathetic ordinance load, has very limited loiter time and can't take any damage at all. Stand off point and click cannot support troops like a big fat flying tank who can put eyes and ordinance on the target or even a big burst of 30-mm angry bees.
They should refit the A-10s, roll back the airframes or even manufacture new ones employing composites and the latest avionics.
Could you be more wrong?
The F-35A carries an excellent gun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-12_Equalizer#GAU-22.2FA
The F-35A can carry 18,000 lbs ord on six external and four internal pylons. That's 2,000 lbs more ord than the A-10 can carry.
The F-35A has TWICE the combat radius of the A-10 on internal fuel. That also translates into longer loiter time at similar range.
The F-35A can trade ord capacity for stealth and operate in threat environments that would mean certain death for the A-10.
The F-35A can effectively protect itself from airborne threats as well as ground threats. The A-10 is a sitting duck to enemy fighters.
-
Again, Harrier only has a single engine and it perfoms exceptionally well
It hardly performs well. It is subsonic, and the engine placement makes it especially vulnerable to IR missiles. The U.S. Marines lost a disproportionately amount of AV-8s during the Gulf War.
-
It's still essentially three separate models. Imagine the manufacturing logistics and parts numbers involved. The design brief could have been solved with one aircraft, had they employed a more holistic design approach. That is my main point.
I'm only discussing design here, I am well aware of the business aspect which I must note often encourages complication.
They are as similar as can be expected given the big differences in requirements for three services (plus the international partners). No design brief could have been solved with one aircraft. The fact that there are differences has nothing to do with "holistic" or non-holisitc approaches. You could no more design a single fighter with the required performance to meet all of these requirements than you can design a car that can win both the Indianapolis 500 and the Baja 500. See my post to Tank Ace above.
The F-35 was designed to have as much in common across the entire fleet of aircraft as possible and part of the problem has been caused by just such an "holistic" approach. There has never been a jet fighter built as a land-based plane that's ever been successfully converted to Navy use. It has worked the other way around (like with the F-4) so it might be possible to force the USAF to accept the big-wing Navy version and just add a USAF refueling system and lighter landing gear but you'd still have to figure out how to make the plane into a VTOL/STOVL.
Also, be careful when you throw out stuff like "the business aspect." That's an old saw and it certainly has happened but from my experience it's usually the services that drive up costs by adding requirements to the design. I personally saw this with the F-14D program and the majority of cost increases were directly related to the Navy adding additional requirements as the plane was being developed while Grumman did everything they could to control the cost. In actuality, the contractor wants to sell planes and they know that as the price keeps going up their profits will either go down due to decreased buys, eating the cost increases themselves, or flat out cancellation as happened with the D. US military contractors are not angels but are far more observant of these things than they're given credit for and when a program gets in trouble it's easy for the service program office to lay all the blame on the evil contractor.
-
The most glaring issue that I can see is that f-22/35 and the like are simply technical exercises. Why do the US need to have a new and stealthy air superiority fighter? Or the UK with the Typhoon, a pointless piece of crap however beautiful it is, because we have no one to fight with it. Are we gearing up for an air war with China? Otherwise I doubt tge Taliban are about to launch their new F15 killer anytime soon.
We scrapped the most versatile and potent close support aircraft ever made with the Harrier. I guarantee you the troops on the ground would take Harriers every time over Typhoons or the fragile F35.
The Harrier had a major problem with heatseekers during Desert Storm. That huge engine with the central exhausts made it very hard to
evade them, plus it's not particularly fast..although very nimble.
-
The Harrier had a major problem with heatseekers during Desert Storm. That huge engine with the central exhausts made it very hard to
evade them, plus it's not particularly fast..although very nimble.
And has an extremely short range and tiny ordnance load. The most versitile, maybe. The most potent? Not by a long shot.
-
Could you be more wrong?
Perhaps if I made a concerted effort. But, you can't operate an F-35A from an improvised airstrip or a carrier. You are right about the bomb load when you include the external hardpoints (but then lose your stealth) and I thought the internal bay had some restrictions. The cannon has 180 rounds of 25-mm versus over 1,100 rounds of 30-mm in the A-10 and resilience to ground fire is very poor. Plus it has one engine.
Perhaps you are right and it will 'do' but it's not really a direct replacement.
No design brief could have been solved with one aircraft.
I think you can if you design for the most restrictive user and you can solve that brief without too much penalty to the other users. This is what I meant with holistic. The biggest restriction is the lift fan solution. It's dead weight in normal flight and I think the Air Force presently has little use for a VTOL/STOVL aircraft when they have big smooth runways if that's all you could use it for.
-
Just for you Shida - British Aerospace test pilot's perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kshe7-BYfWc
(Love the score by Two Steps From Hell)
-
I always loved the A-10, at the NTC they would always find our battery and rape us every time. I was glad to know they would be on our side in a time of conflict. :)
But if I was on the ground today and someone gave me a choice of a A-10, F-35, or a drone to watch over my area for close air support.
I would choose the drone.
-
Personally I'd prefer the AC-130, but I might just be weird. ;)
-
Can't get any stealthier than being grounded at your base. Well played Lockheed, on creating the stealthiest plane in the world.
-
Just for you Shida - British Aerospace test pilot's perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kshe7-BYfWc
(Love the score by Two Steps From Hell)
Appears to be a Lockheed Martin commercial.
There are several documentaries including the one made by Nova which are rather less complimentary. I can see you're a big fan of the aircraft but I'm just trying to make a counterpoint.
Busy with design, I'll get back to you...
-
It hardly performs well. It is subsonic, and the engine placement makes it especially vulnerable to IR missiles. The U.S. Marines lost a disproportionately amount of AV-8s during the Gulf War.
Hardly performs well? Tell that to the Argentine pilots who flew against the Sea Harrier in the Falklands, or to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who relied on its close air support and rapid arrival on station
-
Appears to be a Lockheed Martin commercial.
There are several documentaries including the one made by Nova which are rather less complimentary. I can see you're a big fan of the aircraft but I'm just trying to make a counterpoint.
Busy with design, I'll get back to you...
Here is breakdown of the F35 vs a Su-35S by WGCDR Chris Mills, AM, BSc, MSc(AFIT), RAAF (Retd). This is not the final word but gives you an idea why a few in Aus question this aircraft when the our neighbours to the north are buying cheaper and equal or more effective designs.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html
How will the intended 2,443 F-35s JSF impose air dominance for the USA and its Allies? That is the question to ask.
Search the Internet for material on the JSF and you will find terabyte after terabyte of articles, pictures, Powerpoint presentations, PDFs, tables and laudatory Blogs. And how much relates to how the JSF will deliver this capability? You will find assertions and statement such as ‘six times better Relative Loss Exchange Ratio than legacy aircraft’ [1], or ‘The operational arguments focus on combat effectiveness against top foreign fighter aircraft such as the Russian Su-27 and MiG-29. Lockheed Martin and USAF analysts put the loss-exchange ratio at 30-1 for the F-22, 3-1 for the F-35 and 1-1 or less for the F-15, F/A-18 and F-16’[2].
And how will the F-35 JSF perform, not against truly obsolete legacy aircraft like the Su-27SK and the MiG-29, but against modern fighters like the Su-35S? We can answer these questions with a head-to-head analysis of the two aircraft.
Air combat is a complex mix of art, science and engineering. Aircraft performance, weapons performance, networked sensors and pilot skill all contribute to the final Loss Exchange Ratio (LER). The only simplification is that aircraft approach, engage in combat and the survivors depart. This activity can be examined in a ‘kill-chain’ with the following stages: ‘Detect-Identify-Engage-Disengage-Destroy’ (DIED2).
Here is a scenario. In the ‘Blue’ corner, we have a flight of four F-35A JSFs, each armed with four AIM-120D Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles and the 25 mm GD ATP GAU-22/A cannon. No additional weapons or fuel are carried, because these would compromise the JSFs' “low observability” to X-Band radar. In the ‘Red’ corner, we have a flight of four Su-35S, each armed with four RVV-SD Active Radar Seeker BVR Missiles, four RVV-SD Infra-Red (IR) Seeker BVR missiles, two RVV-MD Within Visual Range (WVR) missiles, the 30mm GSh-301 cannon, KNIRTI SAP-518 jammers on the wingtips and a 6,000 litre conformal tank between the engines. Each aircraft has the full range of sensors and countermeasures.
Here is a table to show how they compare:
-
All I know for certain is that I've spoken to two Norwegian fighter pilots who have test flown the F-35, Eurofighter, JAS Gripen and Rafale (contenders for the Norwegian contract). There was no question in their mind which aircraft they would prefer to fly into combat.
-
There was no question in their mind which aircraft they would prefer to fly into combat.
A Brewster! :old:
:bolt:
-
:lol
-
A Brewster! :old:
:rofl :aok
-
Norwegian pilots have already over 2,000 flight hours logged on the F-35. A little video from our own DoD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtEdfSKgCOQ
-
A Brewster! :old:
:bolt:
Now THAT was funny! :cheers:
-
Norwegian pilots have already over 2,000 flight hours logged on the F-35. A little video from our own DoD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtEdfSKgCOQ
I have never seen a promotional film for a car/bike/plane where the testers on the company payroll state to the camera that its bad in anyway. The PR spin in the early days of this plane are coming to light and its causing backlash around the world.
Looks like its falling out of favor with the dutch.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/02/jsf_jet_does_not_fit_in_revise.php
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/dutch-fighter-f-idUSL5E8LO8P320121024
Canada media is tearing it a new one...
http://www.thestar.com/business/2012/12/28/f35_a_case_study_in_deficient_decisionmaking_olive.html
Australia is now talking of a mixed fighter force for the first time in 10 years, thus lowering the number of F35s to 50 or less. This is down from over 100 at the start.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/defence-chiefs-obsessed-with-troubled-fighter-jet-fitzgibbon-20130220-2eqru.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pteMgYPm1xM
Watch that last video if you want a bit of an eye opener.
-
All I know for certain is that I've spoken to two Norwegian fighter pilots who have test flown the F-35, Eurofighter, JAS Gripen and Rafale (contenders for the Norwegian contract). There was no question in their mind which aircraft they would prefer to fly into combat.
Against who exactly?
The F-35 is the answer to a problem that does not exist. By the time such problem pops up, the F-35 itself will be outdated and we will be using X-wings or (perhaps more likely) just drones. If a manned attack plane is needed, you build one like the A4-skyhawk - cheap, simple and to the spec. What you dont do is load up every piece of existing and not-yet-existing technology into an over-specced platform that is supposed to do everything imaginable of a plane in the next 50 years. That is a recipe for a failure.
-
The Norwegian Ministry of Defense and servicemen of the Norwegian Air Force are not on the "company payroll". Did you actually view the video?
The media does everything it can to stir up controversy. They did that to the F-16 too. Nothing new.
Ah I guess the meaning was lost there. What i mean by Company Payroll is the MoD has committed a huge investment in the F-35 program. They are using the Tax payers money to buy this equipment and they want to stay in power for the next election. Governments who are shown to have wasted this sort of money on a poor choice, do not normally stay in office if the general public learns of it. So there is little chance of them coming out and saying its a dog.
Also I am willing to bet that there are set damages in the contracts which if a country fails to buy a set % of their original order, then compensation may/will be sort by the seller. (its the sort of thing I see in a lot of contracts I deal with... though my contracts normally top out a lot lower).
The Pilots are in the MoDs pay and will tow the company line unless they want to have a roadblock placed in front of their career. (look up the M2 Bradley and Air Force Col. James Burton)
So in this context "company payroll" refers to the entity with which the person or people are payed in the video.
BTW : I forgot how funny the film "Pentagon Wars" based on James Burtons Book. I used to be a drafter so I know that poor guys pain... Sure you can do... make it fit...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyakI9GeYRs
-
Naw... I don't think so. What you're describing is a conspiracy theory. The decision to buy the F-35 was not done by the government alone, but by parliament. The ruling labor party has around 30% of the seats in parliament. This was a decision made by all the political parties. Also I kinda find it offensive that you accuse our pilots of lying when they say the F-35 is great.
-
Naw... I don't think so.
no your quite right, its all a conspiracy theory...
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/joint-strike-fighter-13-flaws/ < these flaws have not been addressed and these are raised by the Pentagon.
Here is a list if you dont want to click the link.
The helmet-mounted display system does not work properly.
The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard.
The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service.
The F-35C's arresting hook does not work.
Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth.
The wing buffet is worse than previously reported.
The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan. <kind of a big issue for such an
The flight test program has yet to explore the most challenging areas.
The software development is behind schedule.
The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, not properly balanced for VTOL operations.
There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft.
The automated logistics information system is partially developed.
The lightning protection on the F-35 is uncertified, with areas of concern.
Or maybe you will listen to the person who designed the F-16 which you have shown respect for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI
Also I kinda find it offensive that you accuse our pilots of lying when they say the F-35 is great.
Really? They are saying what they are allowed to say. What would happen to a pilot who jumps out of a new plane and says "I hate it, where is my old F-16" to the media or the public?
-
You're quoting an article from 2011. Our F-35s are right on schedule for the planned delivery in 2020 (four two-seaters will arrive in 2016).
If you can get your head out of 2011 for a moment, and at least into 2012, you'll see the program is progressing nicely.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2012/06/11/pentagons-best-kept-secret-f-35-fighter-is-progressing-nicely/
-
Naw... I don't think so. What you're describing is a conspiracy theory. The decision to buy the F-35 was not done by the government alone, but by parliament. The ruling labor party has around 30% of the seats in parliament. This was a decision made by all the political parties. Also I kinda find it offensive that you accuse our pilots of lying when they say the F-35 is great.
To be fair the whole programme is hallmarked by 'kickbacks' and shady dealings. It isn't anything new in aircraft procurement, this is big business.
It's nothing personal GScholz but you do seem to me to be rather predisposed towards worshipping a product without being very critical or questioning the motivations of those who benefit from it. I'm not saying your fighter plane chums are on the payroll (or even you, you might be, in which case for a small fee I will promote it also :devil), they may genuinely think it's a good flying aircraft but this issue extends far beyond the boundaries of Norway.
The American system, as I understood it is based on competition to motivate and bring out the best solution. There has been none of that here the selection looks pre-determined to even a passive observer and I think Joe public (in many countries this programme has affected) is fed up with having their intelligence insulted.
<Shrug>
-
Well... Boeing (you know, the biggest military aviation contractor in the U.S.) did compete for the contract, and lost to the underdog Lockheed Martin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32
I do like the F-35 from a capability perspective, but my opinions are more based on good old hindsight. I've seen it all before. The F-35 will be the next F-16 success story; it's a classic case of "too big to fail".
-
Well... Boeing (you know, the biggest military aviation contractor in the U.S.) did compete for the contract, and lost to the underdog Lockheed Martin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32
I do like the F-35 from a capability perspective, but my opinions are more based on good old hindsight. I've seen it all before. The F-35 will be the next F-16 success story; it's a classic case of "too big to fail".
The Boeing design was rushed and incomplete. LM could spring off the F-22 platform. One and a half competition entries.
It may never come to this as I don't see a massive motivation or capability in those places which are motivated, but arms races are always a moving target. It is useless to compare these products to their predecessors, if this isn't substantially better than the F-16 then someone needs to be shot, given the natural progress of technology and fabrication technique. It's more what they'll come up against before the next iteration can be evolved, and given the cost and resources and bad feeling generated, this is going to be a very very long time for the USA.
Well, it's an interesting discussion and event. People can and indeed should form their own informed decisions. Try to be critical always of what you are told. 'The truth is out there', blah, blah, blah...
:salute
-
The F-35 is a colossal waste of money. As nrshida pointed out, it is obvious that the program is still alive because of "kickbacks and shady dealings" and that's part of what bothers me. What bothers me most is that the F-35 was billed as an alternative "all around capability" fighter alternative for the F-22. Additionally, it was originally billed to have cost much less. That is no longer the case. It is now be forecast that it might actually cost more per plane that the F-22.
That is irresponsible.
The F-22 flies very well and aside from an O2 system flaw, seems to be performing quite at expectations. The F-22 also comes with R&D to build the F-22B. Why are we wasting trillions on an unproven and immature technology when existing technology already exists that would allow an existing airframe albeit modified to do what we need?
-
I do like the F-35 from a capability perspective, but my opinions are more based on good old hindsight. I've seen it all before. The F-35 will be the next F-16 success story; it's a classic case of "too big to fail".
You are basing that on the ability of the US being able to continue bankrolling this colossal failure. I suspect if it stays alive, it will never see the numbers produced as expected 2700+ and that it will end up costing almost 1.5X the cost of the F-22 per unit.
-
The fifth lot of F-35s that was finalized a week ago sold for $107 million per aircraft. 4% less than the previous lot. By the end of the year I expect the fly away price to drop below $100 million. The F-22 ended production with a flyaway price of $180-215 million (according to defenseindustrydaily.com), or in other words about 80-115% more than the F-35.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/15/us-lockheed-f-idUSBRE8BE01G20121215
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptor-procurement-events-updated-02908/
Where do you get your numbers from?
-
While there will always be some small need for manned aircraft. Manned combat aircraft is going to be at some point in the not too distant future a thing of the past.
You want to see the future of armed aerial combat? You play it right here
Drones are the future of air war. By removing the human element from the aircraft. Aircraft itself can be designed to be able to do things that would be impossible with a human physically in the cockpit.
It will be done at a much reduced cost in both airframe and crew training. Not to mention lessening the risk of aircrews.
If we accept Iran's most recent claims of shot down drones as fact for example. In the past those would also have been two lost or captured crews and their training as well.
-
JAS Gripen NG flyaway price: $60 million.
F-16 Block 60 flyaway price: $80-100 million.
F/A-18E/F flyaway price: $66 milion.
Eurofighter Typhoon flyaway price: $105 million.
Dassault Rafale flyaway price: $90-124 million.
How can a unit flyaway price of $107 million be considered excessive for an F-35 this early in the production? By lot 10 it will most likely be cheaper than a new F-16.
-
Dred, it will still take a few decades before drones (or more appropriately called "droids") will supplant the manned fighter-bomber.
-
Also, it is not that these aircraft are so much more expensive than their predecessors; most of the price difference is because $1 in 2012 had the same buying power as $0.56 in 1990...
-
Dred, it will still take a few decades before drones (or more appropriately called "droids") will supplant the manned fighter-bomber.
They can do it now. In a lot of ways they already are
-
It's an engine issue, Lockheed subcontracted that sh!@ out, not to one but two subcontractors because thay thought ti was the best idea, legislation nipped General Electric's promising development in the bud, and the current engine in question is being fine-tooth-combed by Pratt & Whitney.
-
Since the fall of the Soviet Block in 1991 Norway has used its F-16s in military operations against three nations. So on average once or twice per decade we need to bomb someone.
Our F-16s are 30 years old now and have been constantly updated over the years. They are still fully capable of serving our military needs, and had they not been nearing their end-of-life number of flight hours we would not be buying new aircraft to replace them. The F-16 is in fact still in production more than 30 years after it first entered service with the USAF, and it is still a superb multirole fighter-bomber. I have no doubt the F-35 will still be a formidable weapon in fifty-years time.
The nations Norway bombed could have been bombed by P-47s. OK I am exaggerating, but they were so badly outclassed that an even more superior technology is not required.
The F16 served 30 years because there was no need for a technological generation leap. The west has run out of quality enemies, until the Chinese start to get even more ambitious that is. Or perhaps Mr. Putin decides to grow a big mustache and add "Stalin" to his last name. I do not say that F-16 should serve another 30 years, but that the F-35 is way WAY more than what is needed. This is called an over-spec and is a know recipe for a failure. Engineers know that the worst enemy of "good" is "best".
-
The fifth lot of F-35s that was finalized a week ago sold for $107 million per aircraft. 4% less than the previous lot. By the end of the year I expect the fly away price to drop below $100 million. The F-22 ended production with a flyaway price of $180-215 million (according to defenseindustrydaily.com), or in other words about 80-115% more than the F-35.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/15/us-lockheed-f-idUSBRE8BE01G20121215
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptor-procurement-events-updated-02908/
Where do you get your numbers from?
I have seen many different production prices for the Raptor. Adjusted, supposed actual, production without avionics.... it goes on ad finitum. Your top article quoted the price at:
The current cost for a single copy of an F-22 stands at about $137 million. And that number has dropped by 23 percent since Lot 3 procurement, General Lewis said. “The cost of the airplane is going down,” he said. “And the next 100 aircraft, if I am allowed to buy another 100 aircraft… the average fly-away cost would be $116 million per airplane.
As for the F-35 fly off at $107 million, that can not reflect the final cost because the majority of the systems are not even finished. The software to run it, the helmet mounted HUD, cv landing with a hook, there are wing buffet issues, now there are engine crack issues. Look, I have no hate towards the F-35, I just think that we are collectively spending far too much to know if it is actually going to deliver on what they say it can do. Obviously I am not in procurement, but I have serious doubts that it will ever perform as advertised, and I am not alone. Further, the trillions of dollar price tag is going to double, especially considering the service life is halved at it's current status.
If it was working and meeting expectations, I would not be so hard on the program. It is not, and we (the US) have serious fiscal issues to address, and this type of spending is one of them.
-
Here is what I see, from a Maintainer point of view (Crew Chief of AF-03)
Alot of what I read on here is crazy. Some of the things people come up with. The F-35 is following along with every other plane that has been developed. They all have been over priced and over budget. Its going to happen. Deal with it. We are constantly working to make these planes better and better. Right now we are down for a 3rd stage cracked blade out of AF-02. Who knows how it happened. Could be a bad blade or could be just one of those freak things that happen. Cracked blades in jet engines occur a little more than what people think (talking about all jet powered aircraft in general). Its a safty precaution to ground the fleet till this gets sorted out and the problem fixed. Better to get it taken care of then to possibly lose a jet and/or a life of a pilot. So just because you hear that the fleet is grounded, dont take it as a bad thing.
Most people tend to hate on things they dont really understand cause they read a few negative things online or in a paper or magazine. Dont believe everything you read. Our program is making great strides, and out of the 50,000 or so test points we have over 20,000 accomplished. We still have a long way to go, but we are making it happen.
I cant really go into much detail, but have the things in here are not true that people say. Just call it a little insider info........
-
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/02/18/3690317.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/02/18/3690317.htm)
A recent 4Corners report on the F-35 and its problems includes Lockheed Martin reps, USAF & RAAF reps, Airpower Australia analysts etc
Tronsky
-
Here is what I see, from a Maintainer point of view (Crew Chief of AF-03)
Alot of what I read on here is crazy. Some of the things people come up with. The F-35 is following along with every other plane that has been developed. They all have been over priced and over budget. Its going to happen. Deal with it. We are constantly working to make these planes better and better. Right now we are down for a 3rd stage cracked blade out of AF-02. Who knows how it happened. Could be a bad blade or could be just one of those freak things that happen. Cracked blades in jet engines occur a little more than what people think (talking about all jet powered aircraft in general). Its a safty precaution to ground the fleet till this gets sorted out and the problem fixed. Better to get it taken care of then to possibly lose a jet and/or a life of a pilot. So just because you hear that the fleet is grounded, dont take it as a bad thing.
Most people tend to hate on things they dont really understand cause they read a few negative things online or in a paper or magazine. Dont believe everything you read. Our program is making great strides, and out of the 50,000 or so test points we have over 20,000 accomplished. We still have a long way to go, but we are making it happen.
I cant really go into much detail, but have the things in here are not true that people say. Just call it a little insider info........
:aok
-
The nations Norway bombed could have been bombed by P-47s. OK I am exaggerating, but they were so badly outclassed that an even more superior technology is not required.
Let's see, one of those nations shot down an F-117 (another damaged), one F-16 (even made the movies), plus two A-10s and a couple of Mirages damaged...
-
They can do it now. In a lot of ways they already are
The technology is there, but not the will. The use of armed drones is so controversial that there is an international drive to get them banned. It wont happen of course, but it will take a long while before armed supersonic drones replaces the manned fighter.
-
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/02/18/3690317.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/02/18/3690317.htm)
A recent 4Corners report on the F-35 and its problems includes Lockheed Martin reps, USAF & RAAF reps, Airpower Australia analysts etc
Tronsky
I lasted to just over 3 minutes. I wanted to turn it off at about the 1:50 mark. So full of factual errors and typical media nonsense.
There simply is no balanced media piece on the F-35 that I have seen yet.
-
I lasted to just over 3 minutes. I wanted to turn it off at about the 1:50 mark. So full of factual errors and typical media nonsense.
There simply is no balanced media piece on the F-35 that I have seen yet.
Its a conspiracy I tell thee! :old:
-
Not so much a conspiracy as a popular news item to be negative about. Everyone who actually knows something about the project like beau32 here and our own pilots are dismissed and not given any air time (hell, some people here even dismiss them), while your typical TV "talking heads", who really knows nothing about the aircraft, gets to spout all their negative nonsense. It's a self feeding loop of negative reporting.
-
Beau32, I appreciate your point of view, and I understand your support of the program. It is something you work on and are proud of. So please, nothing is directed at you. As most of us are not in your unique situation, we have to read and observe what we see through media outlets to get our news. What I see is a bit worrisome.
There is no "hate" from me on the F35. Rather, it is concern for a program that is far surpassing its original costs, consistently failing to meet time schedules, may not meet the expected life cycle which means increased costs, and there is valid concern over whether it will actually perform as advertised. I think too many are giving the program a pass because it is so innovative and employs so many. That is not acceptable. The F35 program is the most expensive weapons procurement program in history. People need to let that sink in and realize that a program that is in the trillions of dollars in total cost and likely to rise is not something to take lightly. Add to that that several of the proposed member countries in the F35 are starting to evaluate their decisions to make firm orders. That will increase per unit costs as more and more countries pair down their orders or eliminate them all together.
This program is an extravagance that the US can ill afford, especially with proven "better" weapons systems already fielded.
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
crappy iphone 5 is timeslicing my internet after update to new ios.
Apple is for chumps.
-
Everyone who actually knows something about the project like beau32 here and our own pilots are dismissed....
A lot of people who are in the know are also critical. Your statement is as misleading as those who are critical without any knowledge. You should watch the Nova documentary, it was compelling enough to make the Dutch parliament think twice.
Anyway I've just phoned Lockheed Martin and told them about you GScholz. They were so impressed with your enthusiasm they asked if you could start in PR and Marketing next Monday morning. Apparently they have a lot of vacancies because they had to transfer most people to the complaints department.
-
crappy iphone 5 is timeslicing my internet after update to new ios.
Apple is for chumps.
-
So which two planes do you guys suggest that can perform the missions that the F35 can with the same performance and capability?
You will need two.......maybe three.
One that can fight.
One that can take off vertically or on a short carrier.
One that can carry 6 x 2000lb bombs.
Please present your alternatives that offer the same or better performance in these mission roles.
-
Lies, Damn Lies, and the Trillion-Dollar F-35...
Bodhi, the oft-claimed program cost of more than a trillion Dollars is nothing more than BS from people who have little, or no idea of what they're talking about. The one+ trillion is the estimated lifetime cost of the program, not the procurement cost. Further more the number itself is hardly worth the paper it is printed on; it counts every possible cost to operate and modernize the F-35 during a 25-year production run, followed by a 30-year operational life. It represents a half-century’s worth of fuel, parts, upgrades, and even related ground infrastructure construction costs. However, the trillion dollar number is undeniably a useful stick with which to flog the F-35 and defense spending in general.
-
A lot of people who are in the know are also critical.
Name one.
-
Name one.
Pierre Sprey.
-
Lol, Pierre Sprey of Fighter Mafia fame?
Don't believe anything that man or his partner in BS Winslow Wheeler says.
I read Sprey’s essay on the F-22, and after that I'm never reading anything that man writes, ever. It fails to offer any proof and in fact, offers the same standard lies about the F-22 that I’ve already heard numerous times. Moreover, the essay reveals that Sprey is either completely ignorant about defense issues or, more likely, so biased against modern weapons that he’s blatantly lying to malign them while praising the F-16 fighter to the highest.
Why the F-16? Because Sprey, as a member of the Fighter Mafia, was one of the men behind that program and, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, he advocated its development and production. Sprey is, in short, the godfather of the F-16 as much as Harry Hillaker and John Boyd were. His love for his brainchild, the F-16, is obviously blinding him, leading him to malign better, more capable aircraft, including the F-22 and F-35.
-
For everybody other than Mr. Scholz who is unswervingly worshipping in his appraisal (which is fine) here is the Nova documentary made in Holland (also on the list of buyers).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kssZua8MVc
Well worth watching.
-
Same guys who lobbied so heavily that the F5 didn't get a chance to properly compete against the F16?
-
Why the F-16? Because Sprey, as a member of the Fighter Mafia, was one of the men behind that program and, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, he advocated its development and production. Sprey is, in short, the godfather of the F-16 as much as Harry Hillaker and John Boyd were. His love for his brainchild, the F-16, is obviously blinding him, leading him to malign better, more capable aircraft, including the F-22 and F-35.
That's a big stretch and unsubstantiated. Instead of paying attention to an ad hominem attack, I suggest everyone just watches the documentary and listen to their points.
-
Why the F-16? Because Sprey, as a member of the Fighter Mafia, was one of the men behind that program and, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, he advocated its development and production. Sprey is, in short, the godfather of the F-16 as much as Harry Hillaker and John Boyd were. His love for his brainchild, the F-16, is obviously blinding him, leading him to malign better, more capable aircraft, including the F-22 and F-35.
That's a big stretch and unsubstantiated. Instead of paying attention to an ad hominem attack, I suggest everyone just watches the documentary and listen to their points.
-
Yes, well worth watching just to see how Wheeler's claims have little or no foundation in reality, how he's still mentally in the 1960's and '70s, and how he consistently fails to back up his opinions with anything.
-
LOL! He actually claimed that when F-16 pilots get to fly the F-35 they will be horrified! That man is so completely full of sheit!
Yeah, let's ignore what the actual pilots say and listen to this sweethunk!
I'm not watching parts 2-5.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=96Kx6b7oKA8
-
http://vimeo.com/45646144
Imagine that... He's not horrified!
-
Win lose or draw with the F35 program, one thing that will drive me absolutely insane is that if they pull the plug on it say in the next year or so, after spending SO much on the development so far.
If this was to occur, it would remind me SO MUCH of the RAH66 Commanche program, where the US Army/Pentagon spent 9 Billion developing the thing, then cancelled the 6 billion dollar part of the program that actually would build them. So, out of a 15 billion dollar program, they spent nearly 2/3 of the budget to create it and make it work (by many accounts it worked incredibly well), then decided to not spend the smaller amount of the budget which would actually build and maintain them. Like, what the h e-double hockey sticks?!
One thing I'll repeat is all the tech and stealth and ordinance carrying capacity aside, a HUGE, and I mean HUGE factor for export customers with smaller air forces, like ours in Canada, is the 50% greater internal fuel fraction the F35 has over current fighters like the F18 Legacy. We don't have a huge tanker force, in fact I think Canada has 2 converted transports for our entire fighter force of about 85 upgraded Hornets, and 65 projected F35's should we buy them. Simple things like this, which will result in far greater range and flexibility for F35 customers upgrading gen 4 and 4.5 fleets are a crucial point in favor of it.
I still have to wonder though, after reading a couple of books and papers from Barett Tillman, if small air forces like ours would be better served with larger numbers of lower tech, cheap, but still high performance planes like say the F20 Tigershark. With the advances in engine tech since the F20 was new, it would be even higher performing, and it was already 1.1 or 1.2 thrust/weight back then. Stick in a decent radar, or even a small AESA, forget the stealth stuff, and I think for our mission, which is primarily NORAD air defense missions and supporting NATO ops on occasion, we MAY be better off. Tillman states that due to it's simplicity, the F20 or a similarly simple modern fighter would have sortie generation rates triple that of these modern wizzbang jets with all the stealth features and what not. I'm not saying this is the way to go, just that I've enjoyed reading what air force experts have considered regarding this route.
Thanks for posting Beau, I always await your responses in the F35 thread, I for one appreciate the work you guys are doing, it must really suck in this age trying to keep positive with the media and every group that has a dog in the hunt either scrutinizing or bashing every single incident that occurs. One thing that keeps me hopeful is something you always hint at, that we the public aren't cleared to get the whole picture of what's really happening with the F35. I think that it's probably a lot like the special operations field, the only times the public hears anything is if it revolves around failure, the successes by design and requirement most often go unknown.
-
Let's see, one of those nations shot down an F-117 (another damaged), one F-16 (even made the movies), plus two A-10s and a couple of Mirages damaged...
So, 4 downed planes in two decades is something that requires a new and generation-leap of superior technology? Because it did not look like Norway/NATO was about to lose the air war. Do you think that the F-35 cannot be shot down? Note that I am not saying that there should not be a next generation strike plane, I am just saying that it needs to be a LOT simpler and practical than the F-35 elephant.
-
The only thing that secured victory in Bosnia/Serbia was NATO's overwhelming air power. Norway cannot gamble on always having that advantage. The U.S. can afford to upkeep a multi-thousand fleet of combat aircraft. We have 50 old planes. We're buying 50 new planes to replace them. We want them to be the best we can get for our money.
Are you privy to the details of the F-35's complexity and practicality, or are you basing your opinion on what the media is feeding you?
-
Honestly GScholz, when you just attack people personally without addressing their points then it does rather diminish your credibility and your position. Right now you look like a proper fanboi who won't tolerate an opinion which differs from your viewpoint. I don't know why you're so motivated to promote this aircraft, but you're not discussing, you're just dictating, and everyone should listen to you only :rolleyes:
Even if Sprey and Wheeler are raging, dribbling lunatics, so butthurt that their favourite aircraft are going to be replaced that they've gone full-on LACES OUT (http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/8103/crazy5.gif), let's just address a couple of their issues and see if they stand to reason:-
The stealth technology of the F-35 is of limited benefit and comes with penalties: The stealth is frontal aspect only, and nullified completely with external ord. And it's high maintenance we know the F-22s in service can be as bad as 35 hours per 1 hour of flight. This only gets worse as they age.
The aircraft isn't manoeuvrable enough to be a fighter: The roll rate is as good as the F-16 (and they seem to roll it an awful lot in the 'adverts'), the wing loading however is 103 lb/ft² with full fuel, no ord and as much as 150 lb/ft² fully loaded. And I'm talking about the 'A' here, the so-called 'hot fighter' variant, not the Navy one or the STOVL version both of which are heavier. There is no thrust vectoring and the sustained turn is limitted to 4.5G because of airframe limitations. Wouldn't be so bad if it could out climb everything but it can't do that either.
The aircraft is vulnerable and unsuitable for close-air-support: It has no fire suppression system, no armour, the fuel tanks envelop the engine. A single 12.7-mm in the wrong place, and there are plenty of wrong places, and you have an Aces High Zero in a heartbeat. Even the Talywhackerban can field such weapons on the back of a Toyota or concealed on the ground. You can't fulfill this role flying at 20k, where it's safe.
The BVR only approach is folly: Hasn't every conflict to date illustrated this? Do we have stealth missiles or smart missiles with IDFOF built in? How many missiles can the F-35 carry internally? How many fundamental changes have their been in the last three decades? Why does the F-35 carry a gun?
The F-16 was introduced in 1978, that's 35 years ago! Just accounting for the natural progression of technological development including materials, engine development and computing and the resources expended the F-35 should not be a small improvement, it should be spanking everything.
-
I have talked to the pilots and seen what they say about the F-35. One pilot flew F-16's, one flew the A-10, another flew the F -15E, and another the F-18. All have combat time in their respective planes. They all agree that the F-35is better than the others, hands down. And once they get fielded, will be a huge asset to the battlefield.
The f-35 does have fire suppression bottles, changed one out a few weeks ago......
-
Honestly GScholz, when you just attack people personally without addressing their points then it does rather diminish your credibility and your position. Right now you look like a proper fanboi who won't tolerate an opinion which differs from your viewpoint. I don't know why you're so motivated to promote this aircraft, but you're not discussing, you're just dictating, and everyone should listen to you only.
Don't listen to me. Don't listen to the media talking heads. Listen to beau32. Listen to the pilots who fly the F-35. Listen to those involved in the project.
The stealth technology of the F-35 is of limited benefit and comes with penalties: The stealth is frontal aspect only, and nullified completely with external ord. And it's high maintenance we know the F-22s in service can be as bad as 35 hours per 1 hour of flight. This only gets worse as they age.
The F-35 has front focused stealth. The F-35 is said to have a small area of vulnerability from the rear because engineers reduced cost by not designing a radar blocker for the engine exhaust. From other angles the F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117.
The aircraft isn't manoeuvrable enough to be a fighter: The roll rate is as good as the F-16 (and they seem to roll it an awful lot in the 'adverts'), the wing loading however is 103 lb/ft² with full fuel, no ord and as much as 150 lb/ft² fully loaded. And I'm talking about the 'A' here, the so-called 'hot fighter' variant, not the Navy one or the STOVL version both of which are heavier. There is no thrust vectoring and the sustained turn is limitted to 4.5G because of airframe limitations. Wouldn't be so bad if it could out climb everything but it can't do that either.
The F-35A has better instantaneous and sustained turn rates than an F-16 carrying a war load. A clean F-16 in "air show mode" has a maximum sustained turn rate of 18 degrees per second. The F-35A carrying an A2A war load and full fuel has a sustained turn rate of 17 degrees per second. The F-35 has better acceleration and top speed than the F-16 carrying a war load, and that's with the F-35 carrying 3.5 times more internal fuel than the F-16. The F-16 is actually structurally limited to 4G's if carrying external fuel or bombs.
The aircraft is vulnerable and unsuitable for close-air-support: It has no fire suppression system, no armour, the fuel tanks envelop the engine. A single 12.7-mm in the wrong place, and there are plenty of wrong places, and you have an Aces High Zero in a heartbeat. Even the Talywhackerban can field such weapons on the back of a Toyota or concealed on the ground. You can't fulfill this role flying at 20k, where it's safe.
It has self sealing fuel tanks and an inerting system. If you don't know what that is, google it. Your Zero-analogy is completely ridiculous.
The BVR only approach is folly: Hasn't every conflict to date illustrated this? Do we have stealth missiles or smart missiles with IDFOF built in? How many missiles can the F-35 carry internally? How many fundamental changes have their been in the last three decades? Why does the F-35 carry a gun?
The F-35 can carry the AIM-9X Sidewinder and IRIS-T dogfight missiles. And, as you point out, it has a gun. This is one issue where Wheeler really shows how delusional he is, or more likely deliberately untruthful. The whole point of developing that fancy helmet is to guide those dogfight missiles.
BVR missile reliability is another issue where he is clearly delusional, and clearly still in Vietnam-mode. Since the late-'80s more than half the recorded U.S. A2A victories have been made with AIM-7 or AIM-120 BVR missiles. Since it entered service in 1992, 13 AMRAAMs have been fired in anger resulting in the destruction of 9 aircraft.
The F-16 was introduced in 1978, that's 35 years ago! Just accounting for the natural progression of technological development including materials, engine development and computing and the resources expended the F-35 should not be a small improvement, it should be spanking everything.
It is spanking everything, or rather it will be. All except the F-22 of course.
-
The F-35A has better instantaneous and sustained turn rates than an F-16 carrying a war load. A clean F-16 in "air show mode" has a maximum sustained turn rate of 18 degrees per second. The F-35A carrying an A2A war load and full fuel has a sustained turn rate of 17 degrees per second. The F-35 has better acceleration and top speed than the F-16 carrying a war load, and that's with the F-35 carrying 3.5 times more internal fuel than the F-16. The F-16 is actually structurally limited to 4G's if carrying external fuel or bombs.
Having been through this before, this is an interesting and often overlooked aspect. It's true that you usually hear numbers that sound fabulous but don't relate to the real world and this can make comparison difficult. For instance, when comparing the F-14D and F-18C, the F-18C outturns the F-14; however, this is slick, with no external stores and, in the case of the Hornet, the performance quoted are numbers obtained with its wing pylons removed. Of course, the F-14 is much faster but it's easily outturned (if you fight the Hornet's fight but that's a different subject). Of course neither airplane is of much use without weapons and fuel so what about what we call the "fleet" configuration? How these planes will be loaded in the real world. The Tomcat adds two relatively small external fuel tanks directly under the nacelles while the Hornet adds two, or even three relatively enormous external tanks with large pylons. In this combat configuration the playing field is really leveled. Even if both get rid of their external tanks the Hornet cannot dump it's pylons so is always compromised while the Tomcat, whose tank stub pylons aren't even noticable, is much cleaner. The biggest difference then becomes the flying qualities and the Hornet wins this due to it's fly-by-wire design.
These exact same questions are relevant now. I don't know where you got these numbers but, if true, it sure seems that with equal loadouts the F-35 should out perform the F-16, especially given that it's weapons are internal rather than hanging out creating drag. Also, there is the subjective issue of flying quality which can be very underrated. From what I've heard the airplane is extremely easy to handle but I'm not sure how you could improve on the F-16's flying qualities which are also supurb and I don't know how easy the newer generations of potential adversaries handle. I hear they're pretty good also so I have no idea how they would stack up. Then there's another, somewhat philisophical question. Do you make the plane turn or do you make the missiles turn? Here would be an extreme example. Suppose you had a stealth aircraft that couldn't turn real well but equip it with missiles that can be fired against targets anywhere in the vicinity (using the helmet mounted sight for instance) while the adversaries all have to pretty much turn their planes to launch their missiles at you. Who's better off? What if you can see a guy swinging your wingline for a rear quarter attack on you but, instead of just being able to see him you can launch a missile at him without ever having to turn or slow down? Every time you think about going faster or turning tighter you put the technology into a missile and sling it on the same plane rather than redesign the plane for improved performance. Kinda makes you think, doesn't it? BTW, where did you get the performance numbers if you don't mind me asking?
The F-35 can carry the AIM-9X Sidewinder and IRIS-T dogfight missiles. And, as you point out, it has a gun. This is one issue where Wheeler really shows how delusional he is, or more likely deliberately untruthful. The whole point of developing that fancy helmet is to guide those dogfight missiles.
I disregarded Wheeler when I watched one of the videos posted (the Australian one I believe). Where he lost me is when he complained about the F-35's heavy computerization and how if the computers crashed the F-35 would just fall out of the sky. I seem to recall a whole bunch of similar complaints about another new airplane. What was that plane....OH, I remember, it was the F-16 which was the first totally fly-by-wire fighter in the world and, relatively speaking, was as heavily computerized for its time as the F-35 is for its. The F-16 has no backups to the FBW, if the computers crash it'll crash. WTH is this guy doing making such an argument?
-
There's only one way to solve this. In the DA!
-
Lies, Damn Lies, and the Trillion-Dollar F-35...
Bodhi, the oft-claimed program cost of more than a trillion Dollars is nothing more than BS from people who have little, or no idea of what they're talking about. The one+ trillion is the estimated lifetime cost of the program, not the procurement cost. Further more the number itself is hardly worth the paper it is printed on; it counts every possible cost to operate and modernize the F-35 during a 25-year production run, followed by a 30-year operational life. It represents a half-century’s worth of fuel, parts, upgrades, and even related ground infrastructure construction costs. However, the trillion dollar number is undeniably a useful stick with which to flog the F-35 and defense spending in general.
GS,
Those costs are real and they add up substantially. Start realizing that the costs to operate and keep the aircraft relevant are going to be many times what the initial procurement of 2600 aircraft will cost the US. That is around $312 Billion if the cost stays around $120 Million per unit. When you also add in the additional technology that is not figured into those costs or the maintenance, spares, operational costs, and all aspects of what is needed to run those fighters, the costs are in the TRILLIONS. That is real money.
Take another aspect. The life cycle has recently been quoted as being less than half what it was anticipated to be. So let's say these aircraft last 20 instead of 40 years. What does that do for costs? Especially when a replacement is needed in half the time as before?
This is an colossally expensive endeavor. One that needs to be more thoroughly vetted before the US spends the trillions it will require.
-
@Mace
At a seminar last year at our national aviation museum. Two officers from the RNoAF that are working with the F-35 program were giving a lecture on the F-35. I'm pretty fortunate for an aviation enthusiast, living in Bodø, Norway's "fighter town". Had the honor of meeting legendary test pilot Eric Brown back in 2007 and attending his lecture on the quest for speed during WWII and post-war.
-
GS,
Those costs are real and they add up substantially. Start realizing that the costs to operate and keep the aircraft relevant are going to be many times what the initial procurement of 2600 aircraft will cost the US. That is around $312 Billion if the cost stays around $120 Million per unit. When you also add in the additional technology that is not figured into those costs or the maintenance, spares, operational costs, and all aspects of what is needed to run those fighters, the costs are in the TRILLIONS. That is real money.
Take another aspect. The life cycle has recently been quoted as being less than half what it was anticipated to be. So let's say these aircraft last 20 instead of 40 years. What does that do for costs? Especially when a replacement is needed in half the time as before?
This is an colossally expensive endeavor. One that needs to be more thoroughly vetted before the US spends the trillions it will require.
Those expenses are irrelevant to this discussion since you would incur those expenses no matter what modern combat aircraft you operate. It will not be markedly cheaper to operate a similar sized fleet of F-16s or F-18s. And those jets are not even much cheaper to procure new either when you need to replace them.
-
I have to disagree as they are very relevant considering the uncertainty of the F-35's performance and expectations. Additionally, the "new" equipment and parts that are required for the F-35 are substantially more expensive than that of the legacy series that is currently in production.
-
What "uncertainty of the F-35's performance and expectations" are you referring to? It has been flying for more than five years already, and USAF pilots have begun training on it. How and what will make the F-35 "substantially more expensive" to operate?
-
The F-35 in the year 20-teen I think is expensive but not overpriced. You know what I do think is overpriced, though? $3.50 loafs of bread and $4.50 gallons of milk and 87-octane.
:rolleyes: :noid :bolt:
-
What "uncertainty of the F-35's performance and expectations" are you referring to? It has been flying for more than five years already, and USAF pilots have begun training on it. How and what will make the F-35 "substantially more expensive" to operate?
There is plenty of uncertainty given that the aircraft has many systems that have yet to be integrated. There are wing buffet issues still, CV hook issues, and a host of other issues. For an aircraft that was originally going to be around $60 a copy and is now twice that without all the systems, I think it is prudent to be concerned.
-
There is plenty of uncertainty given that the aircraft has many systems that have yet to be integrated. There are wing buffet issues still, CV hook issues, and a host of other issues. For an aircraft that was originally going to be around $60 a copy and is now twice that without all the systems, I think it is prudent to be concerned.
Prudent to be concerned? Sure. Hyperventilating about it as some folks are doing? Nope.
The problems I've heard about the plane are really no different than those seen during the development of any other high visibility aircraft develoment program. "Experts" (many with agenda or simply there to make money as a talking head) come out of the woodwork, every problem becomes insurmountable, and the contractor and Pentagon are stupid (or crooks). Remember when the big issue was that F-35B would burn holes in the flight deck? I remember a big expose done by 60 minutes back in 1982 where they had an expert that said the Sparrow missile was no good because "it flew too fast." Idiots. The entire purpose of development is essentially to uncover problems and then fix them yet we have the Casandra's claiming that we're doomed every time developmental testing does what developmental testing is supposed to do, discover problems. People may as well express shock that they get wet when they go out in the rain. Most of the develoment progams I'm familiar with, and that's more than one or two, have had even more problems than the F-35 has. All those airplanes that people say we should just keep building had problems, some, like the Hornet, many more problems than the F-35 has yet they turned out to be pretty good planes! I still strongly disagree with the choice of a single engine for the Navy and we'll lose some jets over it but then they didn't ask me before they chose it!
-
There is plenty of uncertainty given that the aircraft has many systems that have yet to be integrated. There are wing buffet issues still, CV hook issues, and a host of other issues. For an aircraft that was originally going to be around $60 a copy and is now twice that without all the systems, I think it is prudent to be concerned.
In case you haven't noticed, the unit flyaway cost is coming down now, not going up. By production lot 10 (they are at 5 now) they expect the unit flyaway cost to be in the $60-70 million range. I don't think they will ever cost just sixty bucks though, but maybe you'll get a very nice scale model for that. ;)
-
Mace,
I agree. Getting worked up over it is not going to change a thing. What I do not like is the extravagance of the program at a time when we can not afford to meet all of our financial obligations. That is of major importance. Based on years of working in the aviation world, I have plenty of friends in the community as well and several (with no benefits to be made from a cancellation) are very concerned over performance and expectations and whether the aircraft will actually meet all of it's design criteria.
My major drawback is overall cost. We simply can not afford it at this time. Should the project be cancelled? No, but it should be curtailed until they are sure it will meet expectations and can remain within new projected costs. As I mentioned before, this is no longer a $60 million per unit cost anymore.
-
In case you haven't noticed, the unit flyaway cost is coming down now, not going up. By production lot 10 (they are at 5 now) they expect the unit flyaway cost to be in the $60-70 million range. I don't think they will ever cost just sixty bucks though, but maybe you'll get a very nice scale model for that. ;)
I can not agree with you. The cost may have come down, but it is not with full systems yet, so how can you use it as a final number? Here nor there, you have your beliefs that it is a great aircraft and will serve your country well. I do not feel it is the aircraft we need, and I know it's cost will have a major negative impact on our defense capabilities in terms of ability to fund other projects for many years to come.
-
Mace,
I agree. Getting worked up over it is not going to change a thing. What I do not like is the extravagance of the program at a time when we can not afford to meet all of our financial obligations. That is of major importance. Based on years of working in the aviation world, I have plenty of friends in the community as well and several (with no benefits to be made from a cancellation) are very concerned over performance and expectations and whether the aircraft will actually meet all of it's design criteria.
My major drawback is overall cost. We simply can not afford it at this time. Should the project be cancelled? No, but it should be curtailed until they are sure it will meet expectations and can remain within new projected costs. As I mentioned before, this is no longer a $60 million per unit cost anymore.
Absolutely and perfectly stated.
-
I wonder if we can look back at any wwII fighters that promised exceptional speed handling and climb, but could not deliver such claims untill stronger engines came later in the war.
Or how many ran over projected cost. Something tell me..almost all of them?
But hey if wwIII brakes out cost wont matter. Anyhow whats your nations arses worth for protection in a time of war? Should be "Priceless"
-
The F-35A has better instantaneous and sustained turn rates than an F-16 carrying a war load. A clean F-16 in "air show mode" has a maximum sustained turn rate of 18 degrees per second. The F-35A carrying an A2A war load and full fuel has a sustained turn rate of 17 degrees per second. The F-35 has better acceleration and top speed than the F-16 carrying a war load, and that's with the F-35 carrying 3.5 times more internal fuel than the F-16. The F-16 is actually structurally limited to 4G's if carrying external fuel or bombs.
And this is significantly better then its 35 year old cousin? How does it compare to some of the newer fighters, since you are bigging up its dogfighting prowess? Naturally you'll then flip to the helmet solution and BVR stealth argument. Also you keep talking about the fuel load which of course must be internal if you want to retain the stealth but how does fuel consumption compare? I think you are as adept at fiddling data as some of the lobbyists.
It has self sealing fuel tanks and an inerting system. If you don't know what that is, google it. Your Zero-analogy is completely ridiculous.
Is it? It has one of the six dry bay fire-suppression systems it did have, the rest removed to cut costs and save weight because they admitted it wouldn't make any difference anyway. You really see this aircraft loitering around a firefight at low level supporting troops as a direct replacement for an A-10?
The whole point of developing that fancy helmet is to guide those dogfight missiles.
BVR missile reliability is another issue where he is clearly delusional, and clearly still in Vietnam-mode. Since the late-'80s more than half the recorded U.S. A2A victories have been made with AIM-7 or AIM-120 BVR missiles. Since it entered service in 1992, 13 AMRAAMs have been fired in anger resulting in the destruction of 9 aircraft.
Okay, let's play devil's advocate on this issue, if the missiles and BVR engagements are so effective and versatile now, why did they bother making a fighter design at all? Why did they fit a gun? Why not make a dedicated bomb truck, sleek and fast with tiny wings / partially lifting body, better all aspect stealth and a really capacious internal weapons bay which could whizz about in straight lines through the warzone plopping out missiles wherever the pilot could point his helmet?
If this point and click to kill fantasy is feasible why are other nations still developing manoeuvrable aircraft? Are they just more stupid or less knowledgeable then?
It is spanking everything, or rather it will be. All except the F-22 of course.
You really are the perfect consumer :rofl
Mace2004, as a Naval / former Naval aviator (I don't know which), what attributes would you like to see in such an aircraft besides your favouring twin engines? If you were in charge would you buy the F-35 (without being forced for lack of alternative, obviously)? All of the US carriers now and projected still have the catapult and arrestor cable features, correct?
-
I wonder if we can look back at any wwII fighters that promised exceptional speed handling and climb, but could not deliver such claims untill stronger engines came later in the war.
Or how many ran over projected cost. Something tell me..almost all of them?
I know of one for sure, but it wasn't a fighter.
(http://www.retronaut.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/1212.jpg)
-
For the life of me I can't see the F35 being a tank killer like an A10 . The 30mm rounds used by the GUA-8 is just so much more powerful than the GUA-12 25mm gun . Plus the A-10 carrying more than 4 times the ammount of ammo . The Gun is still the A10's main weapon , add into this the huge ammount of protection for the pilot and systems , the low speed handling and you just have two so very different aircraft . If I was a pilot on CAS I'd want something that would be happy at 200-300Kts with a big bathtub on Ti around me to help stop flack from chopping me in half . You need to be able to getting in low and close so you can identify your target correctly (the Blue on Blue tragedies in the gulf war with A10 came down to not getting in close enough to positive identify the threat and relying to much on people who were not there ) You also need to be going slow enough to be more fluid with your attack runs .
The F35 is just not suitable for this roll . The RAF acknowledge that the F35 can't do this infact nothing apart for the AH-64 they have can fit this role .
-
AH64 is painfully slow and has silly servicing requirements.
There aren't a lot of them available and we very often had to rely on US to provide air support.
Not wishing to harp on but DECOMMISSIONING THE HARRIER WAS THE SINGLE MOST STUPID MOD MISTAKE OF MODERN TIMES!
Soldiers are dying as a result of getting rid of a proven force multiplier without a replacement available
-
Oh common rpm!!
:EDIT:
Whoever said the f-35 or ANY AIR CRAFT EVER MADE, could replace the A-10...ugh..same people who swear up and down the frog foot can do the same job, i want to....do......bad things to them.
Spend a few bill-mill-trill making a "stealthy-er?" A-10 with more engine power if possible would get my vote.
I would still adore if they made a F-14 StealthCat. THAT you can spend my tax money on :rock
The main problem i can see is it is a 21st century fighter facing the realm of 21st century anti aircraft technology. Weather that tech be launched by land air sea or space is anyone guess coming into the future. We can nit pick one single little fighter all we want, but the fact still remains this little bird can and will* do what aircraft designed and made 30+ years ago, some still flying today. Cannot.
Remember the past, this is first Gen 21st century fighter design, no one else has this. And the future will only be more bright when it comes to this tech and these designs. Anyone who argues a PRICE tag, for protection is a fool...a dead fool.
-
The only thing that secured victory in Bosnia/Serbia was NATO's overwhelming air power. Norway cannot gamble on always having that advantage. The U.S. can afford to upkeep a multi-thousand fleet of combat aircraft. We have 50 old planes. We're buying 50 new planes to replace them. We want them to be the best we can get for our money.
Are you privy to the details of the F-35's complexity and practicality, or are you basing your opinion on what the media is feeding you?
I do not have the info, therefore I do not nitpick the fine details of where they installed the cup-holder and whether or not the coffee will spill at 4.5 G. My issue is with the fundamental concept of this plane. It is an over-design for almost all of its missions and at the same time a pile of compromises due to the very different requirements to do these missions. Some missions tend to have such requirements where the same platform can do both well. For example, air superiority planes tend to be decent at deep surgical strikes, because they are fast, capable of defending themselves and dont need to carry lots of bombs, or special means of delivery. Close air support? It has nothing in common with the other missions. They have got to put this in as a joke.
GSholz, I don't want this to sound insulting or anything, but 50 planes, which is two squadrons is nothing more than national pride. It is enough for a token participation in the attack of insignificant European countries, or 3rd world countries that are geographically incapable of a direct conflict. They will have very little impact on a full scale ground war. 50 interceptors would have been somewhat useful for actual defense of Norway. Focus on one mission you can select the plane best for this mission and train the pilots accordingly and efficiently. But then they would not be needed/sent to missions abroad and given the lack of actual aerial threats, be labeled parade army.
AH64 is painfully slow and has silly servicing requirements.
There aren't a lot of them available and we very often had to rely on US to provide air support.
Not wishing to harp on but DECOMMISSIONING THE HARRIER WAS THE SINGLE MOST STUPID MOD MISTAKE OF MODERN TIMES!
Soldiers are dying as a result of getting rid of a proven force multiplier without a replacement available
AH64 is not close air support. They are tank/vehicle hunters. They are near useless against scattered troops (worse against dug in) and against fortifications. They are also very vulnerable. Much of their role will be taken by drones in the near future.
Close air support is changing. It is no longer a plane coming in with GP bombs and diving in through the acks on enemy positions. Instead, most of this role will be done by bomb trucks that can release the ords from distance while still flying over friendly territory and often not even guiding the munition themselves. Think science fiction orbital strike. For this you need a plane with long loiter time, lots of lifting capability and good avionics. Almost sounds like a B-52 will be ideal, except that you want a much quicker response time and a minimal ability to defend itself from fighters and SAMs (even though it is supposed to operate under friendly cover). F-35 does not have the loiter time, nor the carrying ability. Stealth is not needed, internal bays are not needed, thrust vectoring is not needed. The mission can be done by a much simpler (reliable, cheaper) plane. If someone insists on a classic close range support F-35 will be a total disaster, though almost no modern plane is well suited for this job - so why risk a shining new expensive plane? use the old attack planes for this role. They will do it just as good/bad.
-
Sorry i will never agree with any weapon system being flown on wifi. It is a signal that can be tracked, intercepted hacked bombed and hijacked.
I will ALWAYS put pressure to have a human being behind and IN the cockpit.
Drones may as well be considered zombies, and if anything like a zombie can drop a xxx amount of bombs on another human,then all flying bomb dropping zombies must be destroyed.
Also, what would it take to make a A-10 carrier worthy?? :D :rock :pray :rock :pray
-
thats my point danny . I've spoken to many QDG soldiers who have praise (and fear) of the A10 .
I'm sorry but CAS can not be done from range . Your talking about strafing runs maybe 10 - 30 meters away from your platoon . UK service men often relied on A-10 to strafe about 20 meters in front of their line to help with breaking a taliban attack . You can not do that sort of precision with stand off weapons you have to be close and dirty .
-
thats my point danny . I've spoken to many QDG soldiers who have praise (and fear) of the A10 .
I'm sorry but CAS can not be done from range . Your talking about strafing runs maybe 10 - 30 meters away from your platoon . UK service men often relied on A-10 to strafe about 20 meters in front of their line to help with breaking a taliban attack . You can not do that sort of precision with stand off weapons you have to be close and dirty .
When you are fighting Taliban then strafing runs are useful. Against a regular army the strafing plane is very likely to get shot down.
I was not talking about stand-off weapons that are autonomous or guided by the plane that releases from a few miles away. The person that is doing the guiding is very close, either among the ground troops, or controlling a drone just above them.
-
GSholz, I don't want this to sound insulting or anything, but 50 planes, which is two squadrons is nothing more than national pride.
Uh oh...
-
Remember the past, this is first Gen 21st century fighter design, no one else has this. And the future will only be more bright when it comes to this tech and these designs. Anyone who argues a PRICE tag, for protection is a fool...a dead fool.
Another very important thing to remember would be that the nation that spends itself from being wealthy into a pauper is likely to lose not only it's wealth, but it's freedom as well. History is full of this lesson.
-
For the life of me I can't see the F35 being a tank killer like an A10 . The 30mm rounds used by the GUA-8 is just so much more powerful than the GUA-12 25mm gun . Plus the A-10 carrying more than 4 times the ammount of ammo . The Gun is still the A10's main weapon , add into this the huge ammount of protection for the pilot and systems , the low speed handling and you just have two so very different aircraft . If I was a pilot on CAS I'd want something that would be happy at 200-300Kts with a big bathtub on Ti around me to help stop flack from chopping me in half . You need to be able to getting in low and close so you can identify your target correctly (the Blue on Blue tragedies in the gulf war with A10 came down to not getting in close enough to positive identify the threat and relying to much on people who were not there ) You also need to be going slow enough to be more fluid with your attack runs .
The F35 is just not suitable for this roll . The RAF acknowledge that the F35 can't do this infact nothing apart for the AH-64 they have can fit this role .
They use to say the same thing about the F-16. I was in Fort Sill doing training on calling in air support. During that training the instructors informed us that the F-16 was going to replace the A-10. This was in 1996 and A-10 is still around. The A-10 is to specialized at what it does to be replaced by any aircraft, F-35 or otherwise.
I can see the F-35 replacing the Harrier, F-16, and maybe the F-18.
-
When you are fighting Taliban then strafing runs are useful. Against a regular army the strafing plane is very likely to get shot down.
I was not talking about stand-off weapons that are autonomous or guided by the plane that releases from a few miles away. The person that is doing the guiding is very close, either among the ground troops, or controlling a drone just above them.
even against a regular army a plane that can get in low not use up all it's stores just for 1 or two kills against tanks or fortified areas and able to stick around is a must . What was the most effective air to ground aircraft in Vietnam ? the A1 sky raider , why ? because it was the piston version of the A-10 .
CAS needs to be able to react as fast as possible that means see the threats before the ground troops do . a pilot can not do that if it is using stand off weapons , an A-10 can do a gun pass every 10 seconds and a team of 2 can wipe out pretty much a whole tank column in a matter of minutes just with it's gun . A-10s are running at heights below 50ft at 200- 300Kts . on an attack run it will be exposed for 10 - 15 seconds in some terrain . that not a lot of time to track , lock and fire your shoulder mounted SAM , even if you are prepared for the attack . plus the A-10 will have taken out SAM an AAA threats before it reaches the hot zone with HARM and AGM-64 . There will always be a place for CAS that is low and within spitting distance of the enemy using gun and dumb bombs .
Drones carry a very small amount of stores compared to A-10 plus a restricted field of view for the operator . People are putting to much trust in drones , for this sort of work . Pilots working in twos or threes and able to get a real look at a battle field will work better than some grunt on the ground close to the battle who is busy dodging shots himself , unable to get any real idea of what is happening on the ground due to the VF being relatively poor compared to human eyes. Drones have their place but pure CAS is not it .
-
Had the privilege of working very close to A10s, AH64s, and a lot more different birds in my time in Afghanistan.
A10, AC130, and AH64 will be the US close combat aircraft for at least 10 more years. No Supersonic jet can do the same job....not because they can't but because a High ranking officer wont let it because of the price.
The Apache and Spectre both are great weapons/ ISR platforms
A10 fly lower then any other combat fix wing aircraft. I have been close enough to see and hear the rudder move. A plane with a high price tag, like a Mirage wont come within 500 feet of the ground while doing a show of force.
F35 is just the next gen all around fighter, but it isn't replacing any of the real killers anytime soon.
-
A10 fly lower then any other combat fix wing aircraft. I have been close enough to see and hear the rudder move. A plane with a high price tag, like a Mirage wont come within 500 feet of the ground while doing a show of force.
I live in Wales Uk and seen F4 phantoms , Jaguars and Tornado GR1 flying below 100ft (Jaguars were probably 50ft ish as I was on a fire road just above the valley floor looking DOWN on the Jags)
-
I live in Wales Uk and seen F4 phantoms , Jaguars and Tornado GR1 flying below 100ft (Jaguars were probably 50ft ish as I was on a fire road just above the valley floor looking DOWN on the Jags)
In a war zone...A10 did about 20feet in country above my head.
No General will let a price tag like an F35 fly that low unless it's to save it.
-
Bet you were glad to see that A-10 . Thats pretty impressive I didn't mean it to try and go one better just saying that the RAF let them go low . but are not suitable for every task.
-
....what attributes would you like to see in such an aircraft besides your favouring twin engines? If you were in charge would you buy the F-35 (without being forced for lack of alternative, obviously)? All of the US carriers now and projected still have the catapult and arrestor cable features, correct?
My example I gave about airframe vs missiles turning was, as I said, extreme. The reality is that you have to look at some kind of balance and that's the real question, do you favor maneuverability or weapon system?
A fighter that can't turn will be a failure and, while a missile may be able to maneuver enough to shoot over your shoulder, shots on targets behind you will still be harder than those in front if only due to the energy expended by the missile just to turn the initial 180 degrees. Fighters will still need to turn well to defeat enemy missiles fired at them, to enhance the probability that their own missile will kill, to maneuver into the proper position for an air-to-ground weapon delivery, or as a last ditch option when out of missiles or for that inevitable "unobserved entry" of an adversary. For CAS, the larger your turn radius, the harder it is to keep a target in sight.
So, how much maneuverability is enough? Well, with the exception of post stall maneuvers, manned aircraft are pretty darn close to the edge of the performance envelope that a man can survive. It's not like AH where you can sit there turning high G turns forever, G's are exhausting and there's only so much a man can do. You can build an airplane that can turn 40 degrees per second (missiles will do this already) but can a man survive the G's? Nope. On the other side of the maneuvering spectrum much is made about post-stall maneuvering, cobra maneuvers, and the like but what is the real tactical utility of slow speed maneuvers like this?
During every turn around training cycle we participated in the Fleet Fighter ACM Readiness Program (FFARP) which was about a month strictly focused on air-to-air combat. On the last FFARP I participated in the sections and divisions I led scored an 18 to 1 kill ratio and that was because I never let any of my guys drop anchor to turn with an adversary. We detected, sorted, and fired missiles in the face and then blew through to the next group leaving any survivors wondering what happened. Our best single sortie kill ratio was a strike escort as a 2-plane. My wingman and I killed all eight bandits. We never turned more than 45 degrees to engage an enemy so, who cares that the F-16N's we were fighting could out turn us? I lost one wingman the entire FFARP. My normal wingman was sick so I had a guy from another division with me and, surprise surprise, he dropped anchor at the very first merge and was nailed before I could turn around to help. So, personally, I think that post-stall maneuvering is a bunch of hooey. I've always said let some adversary slow down enough to do one of his fancy post-stall maneuvers and I'd just pop him with an AIM-9 and move on. Remember that scene out of Indiana Jones where the bad guy whips out a sword and does about 10 seconds of really really scary moves with it and Indiana just pulls out a pistol and shoots him? That's what I'm talking about.
So, those guys that think that the F-35 is overly compromised because it doesn't have twice the F-16's turn rate or thrust vectoring may want to rethink that. I don't know if they've achieved the right balance between aircraft vs weapon system capability but then none of us have access to the plane's true weapon system capabilities. There are reasons such things are classified.
But, to answer your question, "would I buy the F-35 or another plane?" If there were a similar airplane that had two engines I'd go with the two engines but there isn't. I know that this plane competed with Boeing's plane and this one won so it's not like the military put all of its marbles in one sock from the start. I have to admit I'm darned glad that Boeing didn't win, its plane was hidious and everyone knows, a good looking airplane is a better airplane (same theory applies to a newly washed car, it always drives better when clean). Would I want a plane that's faster? Turns better? Carries more? Goes farther? Is invisible? Sure I'd want that AND dozens of missiles that can kill anything within a 10 miles radius of me but somewhere reality has to be considered. Actually, my biggest concern about the plane is its speed and acceleration. "Speed is life" has always been a fighter maxim and it concerns me that the plane appears to be slower with less acceleration than originally intended. On the other hand, engine improvements are always happening and the airplane can be easily re-engined with more capable engines in the future so that's not a killer for me. Overall, from what I know about the F-35 and accepting that none of us know the true capabilities of the weapon system I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say yes, I think I'd be comfortable with it.
-
GSholz, I don't want this to sound insulting or anything, but 50 planes, which is two squadrons is nothing more than national pride. It is enough for a token participation in the attack of insignificant European countries, or 3rd world countries that are geographically incapable of a direct conflict. They will have very little impact on a full scale ground war.
I think you're mindset is too much focused on the way a super power fights... Norway's defense is based on a collective defense with our NATO allies. During the dark years of the Cold War we could muster an army half a million strong... It was designed to last three days. We could buy our allies three days to mobilize and come to our aid. Our air force would be gone on day one, but their mission would be to take out key targets on day one, slowing the Soviet advance. After day three we would only have "stay behind" forces left; guerrilla forces (terrorists lol) using hidden caches of arms and explosives to terrorize the occupying force.
Today Russia is no longer the threat it was. Our armed forces are now more focused on international NATO operations. Yes, 50 planes isn't much by themselves, but again we're talking about a collective effort with other NATO countries. Collectively the countries of Europe can muster more than 3000 modern combat aircraft.
-
We detected, sorted, and fired missiles in the face and then blew through to the next group
HOtard! :old:
:lol No I'm joking. That's a very useful insight, thank you for sharing your experience.
I find it very interesting what you say about thrust vectoring. Just to play fantasy aircraft league for a moment might it have been less risky to select the Northrop YF-23 and develop it for both the Navy and Air Force (there is precedent for this) and then pursue an alternate and dedicated solution for the close air support role. The 23 was more stealthy and faster that the 22, and arguable less complex (no thrust vectoring for starters)?
Your comment about the Boeing touches on a very provocative aspect of design relating to form and function, although this does not always hold. I think Boeing's design was underdeveloped but had some interesting features most especially the single composite wing and rear nozzle.
I'd also like to distance myself from earlier disparaging comments about Norway. I think it's a fine country and A-ha is one of my favourite bands. :old:
-
HOtard! :old:
:lol No I'm joking. That's a very useful insight, thank you for sharing your experience.
I find it very interesting what you say about thrust vectoring. Just to play fantasy aircraft league for a moment might it have been less risky to select the Northrop YF-23 and develop it for both the Navy and Air Force (there is precedent for this) and then pursue an alternate and dedicated solution for the close air support role. The 23 was more stealthy and faster that the 22, and arguable less complex (no thrust vectoring for starters)?
Your comment about the Boeing touches on a very provocative aspect of design relating to form and function, although this does not always hold. I think Boeing's design was underdeveloped but had some interesting features most especially the single composite wing and rear nozzle.
I'd also like to distance myself from earlier disparaging comments about Norway. I think it's a fine country and A-ha is one of my favourite bands. :old:
I don't suppose you ever heard of the NATF? That was to be the Navy's version of the F-22. I saw little about it at the time but we did get to review the cockpit design. It had a swing wing. If you really look at the F-22 you can see how this would have been an easily adaptable design for variable geometry. At first you have to wonder why this wouldn't be an option but it's not air-to-ground so wouldn't really answer all the mission requirements and I doubt it could be procured cheaper than the F-35.
-
In a war zone...A10 did about 20feet in country above my head.
No General will let a price tag like an F35 fly that low unless it's to save it.
The USAF may set minimum altitude on their jets. I also hear your guys don't get to train much on low level flying?
Of the 72 F-16 we bought in the early '80s, about 20 are now smeared up one mountainside or another. We fly them low and fast and we train accordingly, accepting the training casualties. Flying high is a luxury only a superpower with total air dominance can afford.
Most if not all European air forces fly low and fast.
Typical training flight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6nTLWIl-Vj0#t=9s
-
:aok
My example I gave about airframe vs missiles turning was, as I said, extreme. The reality is that you have to look at some kind of balance and that's the real question, do you favor maneuverability or weapon system?
A fighter that can't turn will be a failure and, while a missile may be able to maneuver enough to shoot over your shoulder, shots on targets behind you will still be harder than those in front if only due to the energy expended by the missile just to turn the initial 180 degrees. Fighters will still need to turn well to defeat enemy missiles fired at them, to enhance the probability that their own missile will kill, to maneuver into the proper position for an air-to-ground weapon delivery, or as a last ditch option when out of missiles or for that inevitable "unobserved entry" of an adversary. For CAS, the larger your turn radius, the harder it is to keep a target in sight.
So, how much maneuverability is enough? Well, with the exception of post stall maneuvers, manned aircraft are pretty darn close to the edge of the performance envelope that a man can survive. It's not like AH where you can sit there turning high G turns forever, G's are exhausting and there's only so much a man can do. You can build an airplane that can turn 40 degrees per second (missiles will do this already) but can a man survive the G's? Nope. On the other side of the maneuvering spectrum much is made about post-stall maneuvering, cobra maneuvers, and the like but what is the real tactical utility of slow speed maneuvers like this?
During every turn around training cycle we participated in the Fleet Fighter ACM Readiness Program (FFARP) which was about a month strictly focused on air-to-air combat. On the last FFARP I participated in the sections and divisions I led scored an 18 to 1 kill ratio and that was because I never let any of my guys drop anchor to turn with an adversary. We detected, sorted, and fired missiles in the face and then blew through to the next group leaving any survivors wondering what happened. Our best single sortie kill ratio was a strike escort as a 2-plane. My wingman and I killed all eight bandits. We never turned more than 45 degrees to engage an enemy so, who cares that the F-16N's we were fighting could out turn us? I lost one wingman the entire FFARP. My normal wingman was sick so I had a guy from another division with me and, surprise surprise, he dropped anchor at the very first merge and was nailed before I could turn around to help. So, personally, I think that post-stall maneuvering is a bunch of hooey. I've always said let some adversary slow down enough to do one of his fancy post-stall maneuvers and I'd just pop him with an AIM-9 and move on. Remember that scene out of Indiana Jones where the bad guy whips out a sword and does about 10 seconds of really really scary moves with it and Indiana just pulls out a pistol and shoots him? That's what I'm talking about.
So, those guys that think that the F-35 is overly compromised because it doesn't have twice the F-16's turn rate or thrust vectoring may want to rethink that. I don't know if they've achieved the right balance between aircraft vs weapon system capability but then none of us have access to the plane's true weapon system capabilities. There are reasons such things are classified.
But, to answer your question, "would I buy the F-35 or another plane?" If there were a similar airplane that had two engines I'd go with the two engines but there isn't. I know that this plane competed with Boeing's plane and this one won so it's not like the military put all of its marbles in one sock from the start. I have to admit I'm darned glad that Boeing didn't win, its plane was hidious and everyone knows, a good looking airplane is a better airplane (same theory applies to a newly washed car, it always drives better when clean). Would I want a plane that's faster? Turns better? Carries more? Goes farther? Is invisible? Sure I'd want that AND dozens of missiles that can kill anything within a 10 miles radius of me but somewhere reality has to be considered. Actually, my biggest concern about the plane is its speed and acceleration. "Speed is life" has always been a fighter maxim and it concerns me that the plane appears to be slower with less acceleration than originally intended. On the other hand, engine improvements are always happening and the airplane can be easily re-engined with more capable engines in the future so that's not a killer for me. Overall, from what I know about the F-35 and accepting that none of us know the true capabilities of the weapon system I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say yes, I think I'd be comfortable with it.
-
Again...Not talking about Training....talking combat....
Please tell me a fight where we won't have air superiority?
No third world nation which is where we will most likely be fighting.
-
I love reading your well typed and thought out post's mace. Highly agreed. :aok
I woulda just said..
Is it super man? no. But it's batman...and he will have to do.
-
Again...Not talking about Training....talking combat....
Please tell me a fight where we won't have air superiority?
No third world nation which is where we will most likely be fighting.
This is most likely what we'll be doing in 3rd-world countries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVJOOjUlGek
-
Mace and Eagle..
Real fighter pilots.
If they say something, they know what they are talking about.
:salute
-
:aok
Mace and Eagle..
Real fighter pilots.
If they say something, they know what they are talking about.
:salute
-
It seems to me that most non-US players critiquing the F-35 need to remember that the plane was designed for America first and foremost. The US operates with de facto air supremacy, a colossal number of aircraft, given the price tag, and simply staggering capacity for support and maintenance.
-
It seems to me that most non-US players critiquing the F-35 need to remember that the plane was designed for America first and foremost. The US operates with de facto air supremacy, a colossal number of aircraft, given the price tag, and simply staggering capacity for support and maintenance.
This plane from the very early stages was marketed to Non-US clients. LM knew they needed to sell a lot of them to make it cheaper.
They sold this plane on specs and pricing that it is no longer able to be obtained. The specs have been lowed quite a number of times so that it would "meet" those specs. The testing has taken much longer then planed.
The Australian Government who signed into the deal in mid 2001, for 100 Aircraft, has been forced to spend more money buying F/A-18 Super hornets as the F-111s retired without their replacement being ready.
I hope this plane turns out to be good/great because the RAAF needs new fighter/attack aircraft.
I liked the F-35 when I first heard about it...
-
Doesn't matter what it started out as. US military gave requirements, which gave us what we have now. Lockheed built it yo satisfy those requirements, and thus built it for the USA.
Granted they tried to make it sellable, but that doesn't change the fact that the US started the project.
-
This is most likely what we'll be doing in 3rd-world countries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVJOOjUlGek
Ok now go on Youtube type in Strafing run....then count how many are A10s.....then compare that number to the rest of the birds :D
Set yourself up for failure in this debate, Green Berets get whatever they want :old: :D
From my personal experience in country
4 A10 gun runs (2 had multiple reattacks)
1 GPU from an F16
10-12 Kiowa/Apache engagements
As an Infantrymen on the ground, if you ask me what I want for CCA or CAS I'm going to say Pink Team (Kiowa low with Apache high behind) mainly because they have better eyes to get clear PID so they can engage. If I can't get them I'm asking for A10s because they can see better and get again...PID. If I'm calling in bombs on an enemy I can see, night time, he doesn't see me......then I'd rather have the high alt fast mover because the bad guys tend to run when an A10 is over head or a pink team is in play.
I think the ability to see an enemy from the sky trumps a lot in a third world environment where the enemy blends in.
-
Doesn't matter what it started out as. US military gave requirements, which gave us what we have now. Lockheed built it yo satisfy those requirements, and thus built it for the USA.
Granted they tried to make it sellable, but that doesn't change the fact that the US started the project.
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!
-
Hey Junky, question for you. I've seen a couple videos of F16's and one of an F15E doing strafing runs. They usually only get about 3/4 of a second of fire on target by the looks and sounds of it, probably due to their high speed as you were saying. This means less than 100 rounds, probably around 50 or 60 I would guess considering the spool time of the M161.
Question is this: How effective was 50 or 60 rounds of 20mm on infantry targets in your AO when you were there, if you heard anything about this from others who had CAS strafe from 20mm equipped a/c? Seeing the dispersion of the rounds in the videos that others were talking about, it doesn't look like a whole lot of saturation in the targeted area. Is the effectiveness of this type of strafing with 20mm from tac fighters more of a "show of force" benefit than actually an effective killing weapon vs light infantry? I have no formed opinion of this myself, just wondering what you as a soldier very familiar with air support versus enemy foot mobiles thinks.
After watching some of the AH64 videos of the M230 shooting those 10 to 20 rounds bursts, it's obvious that a hovering, stable platform like an attack helo with thermal sighting and computerized fire control is far superior to these fast jets strafing for CAS vs infantry, to the point of my questioning if 20mm from fast jets is effective whatsoever.
-
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!
:rofl Be quiet Fish, don't back chat citizens of the Empire! Know your place and be grateful :old:
I don't suppose you ever heard of the NATF? That was to be the Navy's version of the F-22. I saw little about it at the time but we did get to review the cockpit design. It had a swing wing. If you really look at the F-22 you can see how this would have been an easily adaptable design for variable geometry. At first you have to wonder why this wouldn't be an option but it's not air-to-ground so wouldn't really answer all the mission requirements and I doubt it could be procured cheaper than the F-35.
I have seen the concept drawings but didn't read too much about it. I like the swing wing approach too as it does offer some advantages especially dealing with centre of pressure changes is supersonic flight and the differing need for lift and wing loading but there are further penalties such as additional mass and loss of internal space. I wonder with advancements in aerodynamics and especially flight control computers if swing wing has had its day. No doubt it would be more expensive but you are left with a single engine with the F-35 so it isn't a direct comparison.
I just wondered what your opinion was of the YF-23 prototype(!), since you didn't see the advantages of thrust vectoring or extreme manoeuvrability.
It seems to me that most non-US players critiquing the F-35 need to remember that the plane was designed for America first and foremost. The US operates with de facto air supremacy, a colossal number of aircraft, given the price tag, and simply staggering capacity for support and maintenance.
In a way Junior is right, the F-35 was designed as one part of a two component offensive air domination strategy compromised for and sold to nations which don't really have that requirement on an perpetually escalating price and diminishing performance to help pay for the development. But at least Mr. Scholz is happy, that's the main thing. :banana:
I wonder though now that the US has gone 'all in' with these two aircraft, if we might see what has happened in the last four decades of ground war happening in the air: i.e. a superior force being undermined by a less well-equipped force employing guerrilla tactics. It's not a big stretch of the imagination to see how this could be done.
-
I wonder though now that the US has gone 'all in' with these two aircraft, if we might see what has happened in the last four decades of ground war happening in the air: i.e. a superior force being undermined by a less well-equipped force employing guerrilla tactics. It's not a big stretch of the imagination to see how this could be done.
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.
But we have them unlike any other nation right now, save our allies soon. Just they have all been very naughty and had to be....grounded.
Couldn't resist. :D
-
Ok now go on Youtube type in Strafing run....then count how many are A10s.....then compare that number to the rest of the birds :D
Set yourself up for failure in this debate, Green Berets get whatever they want :old: :D
From my personal experience in country
4 A10 gun runs (2 had multiple reattacks)
1 GPU from an F16
10-12 Kiowa/Apache engagements
As an Infantrymen on the ground, if you ask me what I want for CCA or CAS I'm going to say Pink Team (Kiowa low with Apache high behind) mainly because they have better eyes to get clear PID so they can engage. If I can't get them I'm asking for A10s because they can see better and get again...PID. If I'm calling in bombs on an enemy I can see, night time, he doesn't see me......then I'd rather have the high alt fast mover because the bad guys tend to run when an A10 is over head or a pink team is in play.
I think the ability to see an enemy from the sky trumps a lot in a third world environment where the enemy blends in.
I'm not sure whet you're trying to say. My country has never operated A-10s...
-
In a way Junior is right, the F-35 was designed as one part of a two component offensive air domination strategy compromised for and sold to nations which don't really have that requirement on an perpetually escalating price and diminishing performance to help pay for the development. But at least Mr. Scholz is happy, that's the main thing. :banana:
Whenever America goes to war it is invariably her carrier forces that first enter the fray. The F-35 will be the USN's only stealth aircraft, and it will have to do everything. That's the kind of aircraft that appeals to nations that can only afford to operate a small air force.
Oh, and Israel, Canada and Norway are getting custom versions specially adapted to our needs. In our case that means drag chutes for landing on short icy runways.
-
I have seen the concept drawings but didn't read too much about it. I like the swing wing approach too as it does offer some advantages especially dealing with centre of pressure changes is supersonic flight and the differing need for lift and wing loading but there are further penalties such as additional mass and loss of internal space. I wonder with advancements in aerodynamics and especially flight control computers if swing wing has had its day. No doubt it would be more expensive but you are left with a single engine with the F-35 so it isn't a direct comparison.
I just wondered what your opinion was of the YF-23 prototype(!), since you didn't see the advantages of thrust vectoring or extreme manoeuvrability.
Now THIS is an airplane that would have made my heart go pitter patter:
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/NATF.jpg)
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. The F-14 carried the majority of its load in the tunnel between the two engine nacelles. This space could have easily be enclosed to include a quite spacious internal bay. The main reason the plane was as big as it was was the radar, Phoenix missile, two-seat cockpit and fuel. You could argue that the wing sweep mechanism still took up some space, and it did, but the swing wing itself made the airplane more efficient and it required less fuel due to it. For instance, on CAP you just throttle back and put the wings out at 20deg and the high-aspect ratio let you loiter around at very low throttle settings. This efficiency extended to ACM where, with the wings out, the airplane could sustain turns against airplanes such as the F-15 with better trust to weight ratios.
Now, the biggest and most common argument against variable geometry is the claim that it makes the plane heavier. This is not true, it actually makes the plane lighter. While everyone was in an uproar about the cost of the plane (the most expensive fighter ever built at the time) Grumman designed an alternative variation with an F-15 style fixed wing. In order to make the wing big enough and add the complex high lift devices such as fowler flaps (the F-14 had simple and light slats and slotted flaps) so the plane could operate from a CV the airplane weighed more and could carry less. Also, a common criticism was that the plane was too big but comepare it with the F-22. Kinda makes you go "hummmm."
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/user71156_pic20092_1253718698.jpg)
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.
-
I've always loved variable geometry aircraft, and that's stunningly beautiful. I was one of the few people who actually liked the 2005 film "Stealth", and it was all because of that awesome variable geometry futuristic carrier jet... And Jessica Biel of course... ;)
-
GMan, my biggest thing is that the fast movers need to be talked in onto target a lot more prior to getting them cleared hot. I'm sure they still get goods effects on target but an Apache has a lot of advantages being able to slowly bank and fire.
-
GMan, my biggest thing is that the fast movers need to be talked in onto target a lot more prior to getting them cleared hot. I'm sure they still get goods effects on target but an Apache has a lot of advantages being able to slowly bank and fire.
Haven't seen 20mm impacts, but 30mm fired in the direct role from Scimitars against personnel make a strong impression.
-
Here's the gun in question with regard to the F-35. An upgraded 25 mm GAU-12 (also used on the AV-8 and AC-130).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O15mW2CN06U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Oz66PDE8w8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSTB7U_qlTM
As for the effect of 20 mm strafing, judge for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy9VPTWyLh0
-
Here's the gun in question with regard to the F-35. An upgraded 25 mm GAU-12 (also used on the AV-8 and AC-130).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O15mW2CN06U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Oz66PDE8w8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSTB7U_qlTM
As for the effect of 20 mm strafing, judge for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy9VPTWyLh0
I meant first person, that was impressive nevertheless
-
Hey Junky, question for you. I've seen a couple videos of F16's and one of an F15E doing strafing runs. They usually only get about 3/4 of a second of fire on target by the looks and sounds of it, probably due to their high speed as you were saying. This means less than 100 rounds, probably around 50 or 60 I would guess considering the spool time of the M161.
Question is this: How effective was 50 or 60 rounds of 20mm on infantry targets in your AO when you were there, if you heard anything about this from others who had CAS strafe from 20mm equipped a/c? Seeing the dispersion of the rounds in the videos that others were talking about, it doesn't look like a whole lot of saturation in the targeted area. Is the effectiveness of this type of strafing with 20mm from tac fighters more of a "show of force" benefit than actually an effective killing weapon vs light infantry? I have no formed opinion of this myself, just wondering what you as a soldier very familiar with air support versus enemy foot mobiles thinks.
After watching some of the AH64 videos of the M230 shooting those 10 to 20 rounds bursts, it's obvious that a hovering, stable platform like an attack helo with thermal sighting and computerized fire control is far superior to these fast jets strafing for CAS vs infantry, to the point of my questioning if 20mm from fast jets is effective whatsoever.
I can't answer for Junky, but here is what the IAF thinks about jet strafing: don't do it. It is not worth the risk. The damage is low and every schmo with an AK47 can shoot a 50 mil$ plane down. The only time what it is worth considering is when you WANT everyone to shoot at the jet, instead of at a more vulnerable/valuable target that is coming in. Those occasions are very rare and the jet does not have to hit anything - it will either make the enemy duck and bury his face in the sand, or focus its attention completely on the strafing plane. Either way it get the intended result. Damage is not required, so the gun does not matter. The cannon is there to shoot planes down.
You have to remember that the #1 cause of battle loss is projectiles from the ground. Not enemy planes, not SAMs, not shoulder missiles. The one thing that should be avoided at all costs is to fly low over the target.
Whenever America goes to war it is invariably her carrier forces that first enter the fray. The F-35 will be the USN's only stealth aircraft, and it will have to do everything. That's the kind of aircraft that appeals to nations that can only afford to operate a small air force.
Oh, and Israel, Canada and Norway are getting custom versions specially adapted to our needs. In our case that means drag chutes for landing on short icy runways.
Israel had two major reasons to invest in the F-35: one is that the US will not sell the F-22 to Israel. Israel has a use for a stealth fighter/attacker given the history of various nuclear facilities, factories and weapons shipments exploding mysteriously in neighboring countries that have full soviet air defense systems and airforces. So far, F-16s F15s in combination with special means achieved stealth. A true stealth fighter/bomber can probably make it easier.
The second reason is that it was a rare opportunity for the Israeli airforce and industry to request modification in the development stage. Usually Israel gets a stock fighter, then would like to pull out a lot of junk that comes with it and insert its own sh** and gizmos instead. Sometimes the US allows (when their industry is desperate enough) modifications at the production line. Sometimes not and then the IAF and industry have to work around the original, which is less than ideal.
Many are not happy in IAF about the decision to invest in the F-35.
-
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.
-
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.
:rofl did you even read what you wrote then? you repeated what I said...
-
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. :old:
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.
-
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.
-
America's defense is best served by having well equipped allies.
Have you thanked Tank-Ace for his magnanimity yet GScholz? :old:
-
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.
-
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]
-
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.
-
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.
(http://All four student pilots commented on the out-of-cockpit visibility of the F-35, an issue which not only adversely affects training, but safety and survivability as well. One rated the degree to which the visibility deficiencies impeded or degraded training effectiveness as “Moderate;” the other three rated it as “High” or “Very High.” The majority of responses cited poor visibility; the ejection seat headrest and the canopy bow were identified as causal factors. “High glare shield” and the HMD cable were also cited as sources of the problem. Of these, only the HMD cable has the potential to be readily redesigned.)
(http://The radar performance shortfalls ranged from the radar being completely inoperative on two sorties to failing to display targets on one sortie, inexplicably dropping targets on another sortie, and taking excessive time to develop a track on near co-speed targets on yet another sortie,)
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. :rofl
-
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."
-
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.
-
Double Post.....