F-35 Fighters Are Grounded

[GScholz]

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.

[danny76]

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.

[nrshida]

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.

 

[GScholz]

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.

[GScholz]

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.

[nrshida]

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.

[USAFCAPcTSgt]

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.

[danny76]

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.

[nrshida]

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.

[GScholz]

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.

[danny76]

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.

Excellent

[nrshida]

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 

[GScholz]

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 

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.

[GScholz]

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.



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.

[GScholz]

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.