F-35 grounded - again

FLYBOYJ · Feb 25, 2013

wuzak said:
Sorry, I was asking if there was no STOVL variant if it would have a big single engine or two smaller ones. I understand that the single engine with lift fan works well for STOVL, and that the single engine negates the possibility of assymetric lift thrust if one engine goes down.

In essence I am asking how much of the F-35A and F-35C designs have been driven by the F-35B?

I have friends who were on the X-35 design team. I think from the get-go a single engine platform was considered to save weight, especially since LMCO had lift fan technology available to them. It seems from the start, there was a "one shoe fits all" concept in the design. I think the airframe shape was dictated by the F-22 (The X-35 was referred as "minnie-me" when compared to the F-22 by some LMCO folks). The designers were faced with a challenge to come up with a STOVL that had size and weight restrictions, therefore that went with a lift fan rather than a second engine. In the end I don't think it was so much of the F-35B influencing the A and C models, but rather the other way around. The "B" has gotten most of the press because it was the basis of the whole JSF program, it's the most advanced, the most impressive, the most expensive and giving the most problems.

Here's a very good piece on the F-35, showing pro and con arguements...

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/

ivanotter · Feb 25, 2013

The idea was to have one design to fit all, inclusive of exports to all and sundry.

Not sure if that was the best idea. But for not ending up in totally different designs, a better compromise might have been sought.

Right now, the ambition level looks as though it was really "reaching for the moon".

Maybe an alternative could be something from Sukhoi?

(OK, that was in jest!)

Ivan

FLYBOYJ · Feb 25, 2013

I think the "one shoe fits all" and ambition level was and still is very do-able. I think the root problem is the highly aggressive flight test program that is so transparent any negative that's encountered, no matter how small or how routine in the flight test environment is displayed as a major failure. Additionally you have 3 very distinctive variants of the same aircraft being painted with the same brush. Combine this with some of the other issues mentioned earlier, mainly $$$ and this whole program is battling a huge up-hill fight. If things aren't bad enough, you have an old member of the "fighter mafia" Pierre Sprey who sometimes winds up on an interview chastising BOTH the F-22 and F-35 (I think he must have an ex-wife who works at LMCO).

wuzak · Feb 25, 2013

FLYBOYJ said:
I have friends who were on the X-35 design team. I think from the get-go a single engine platform was considered to save weight, especially since LMCO had lift fan technology available to them. It seems from the start, there was a "one shoe fits all" concept in the design. I think the airframe shape was dictated by the F-22 (The X-35 was referred as "minnie-me" when compared to the F-22 by some LMCO folks). The designers were faced with a challenge to come up with a STOVL that had size and weight restrictions, therefore that went with a lift fan rather than a second engine. In the end I don't think it was so much of the F-35B influencing the A and C models, but rather the other way around. The "B" has gotten most of the press because it was the basis of the whole JSF program, it's the most advanced, the most impressive, the most expensive and giving the most problems.

Here's a very good piece on the F-35, showing pro and con arguements...

The F-35′s Air-to-Air Capability Controversy

Thanks for the link Flyboy.

That seems to confirm my concerns about the F-35's air to air ability, which would be a key capability requirement for the RAAF.

Matt308 · Feb 25, 2013

But the RAAF has a requirement to replace both an air superiority capable airplane AND a strike fighter. So what did you just confirm? The F-35 is inferior in one or both?

And contrasted with what airframe?

michaelmaltby · Feb 25, 2013

This is the understandable but destructive price democracies pay for "inter-operability". The F-35 program needs to reach fruition. If it doesn't .... it's every client for themselves. Buy Sukoi's if you want a Plan B ...

MM

Matt308 · Feb 25, 2013

No doubt about it. If US screws this up, repercussions will last for decades. Not thinking that will happen though. Certainly procurement lessons will be historic however. I personally put most blame on DoD for such a contracted acquisition/implementation due to requirements creep. The US has got to get a reign on this for EVERY acquisition or our future defense technology is doomed in the future.

wuzak · Feb 25, 2013

Matt308 said:
But the RAAF has a requirement to replace both an air superiority capable airplane AND a strike fighter. So what did you just confirm? The F-35 is inferior in one or both?

And contrasted with what airframe?

I am only talking about the air superiority role. And comparing the likely adversaries - current and next generation Russian and Chinese fighters.

Matt308 · Feb 25, 2013

Then you have lots to be concerned about. Lots. The F-35 is NOT a world contender as an air superiority fighter. Never has been marketed as same, nor will ever be.

wuzak · Feb 25, 2013

Matt308 said:
Then you have lots to be concerned about. Lots. The F-35 is NOT a world contender as an air superiority fighter. Never has been marketed as same, nor will ever be.

That would be, to my mind, the main priority for the RAAF.

But, then again, we will be replacing F/A-18As and F-18Fs with the F-35, so it's not as if we have a world contender for air superiority anyway.

Matt308 · Feb 26, 2013

That was my thoughts too.

mikewint · Feb 26, 2013

I guess I have a one-string banjo here but the best fighting machine in the world is only good if you can keep it capable of fighting. All is wonderful in the states with herds of mechanics and loads of spares readily available. What happens in the desert, jungle, winter, etc. when your machine is shot-up, mechanics overworked or dead, spares not available, etc. Ultra-tech is wonderful until.... FBJ mentioned pilot survivability and that is extremely important but the best pilots still need something to fly.

Matt308 · Feb 26, 2013

Pilot attrition is a real issue for a fighting force operating on quality vs quantity. Successful CSAR becomes are hugely meaningful asset.

mikewint · Feb 26, 2013

Matt you bet. Air force and Navy ran their own SAR for the first 24hrs then we were tasked with finding the pilot. Can't tell you how many times we found a perfectly intact aircraft and no pilot. Again the German parallels as their aircraft went down. a loss yes but who replaces that experienced combat pilot but he still needs something to fly

FLYBOYJ · Feb 27, 2013

Some more bad F-35 press...

Pentagon F-35 program chief lashes Lockheed, Pratt - Yahoo! Finance

"The Pentagon program chief for the F-35 warplane slammed its commercial partners Lockheed Martin (LMT) and Pratt Whitney on Wednesday, accusing them of trying to "squeeze every nickel" out of the U.S. government and failing to see the long-term benefits of the project.

U.S. Lieutenant-General Christopher Bogdan made the comments during a visit to Australia, where he has sought to convince lawmakers and generals to stick to a plan to buy 100 of the jets, an exercise complicated by the second grounding of the plane this year and looming U.S. defense cuts."

Bogdan should be fired for this statement. You're dammed right LMCO and P&W is going to "squeeze" every penny they can - they are in business to make money and they are trying to do it while their customer creates a huge spider's web bureaucracy that continues to add things to this program by people who are nothing more than parasites, trying to justify their existence by adding continual requirements and then blaming the contractor for the costs.

Matt308 · Feb 27, 2013

If I recall correctly, Bogdan is new. I can't recall the acquisition he had prior oversight of however.

Matt308 · Feb 27, 2013

When in doubt... Google.

June 2009 - July 2012, KC-46 Program Executive Officer and Program Director, KC-46 Tanker Modernization Directorate, Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio

Catch22 · Feb 28, 2013

People up here are seriously saying we should be buying Super Hornets. I can see an argument for the Eurofighter or Rafale but if Canada buys the Super Hornet they would be making the biggest mistake they possibly could.

Actually, here would be a good place to ask this. On another site I post on I'm one of the few people with knowledge of military aviation (but of course a lot of other people like to make their "correct" thoughts known), but I'm always stumped when asked about the US weapons compatibility issues with the Rafale. Can anyone tell me or point me in the right direction for information on what the hurdles would be to making it work with our current weaponry?

Matt308 · Feb 28, 2013

In addition to below, Rafale is qualified for the Hammer precision glide bomb.

http://gripen4canada.blogspot.com/p/the-dassault-rafale.html

"Possibly the biggest stumbling block of the Rafale for Canada is, for lack of a better word, its "Frenchness". Not in any derogatory sense, but in the sheer amount of France sourced hardware built into the aircraft. The radar and SPECTRA ECM system are made by Thales, the engines are produced by Snecma. Almost all major components are built in France. This, of course, includes its weapons systems. This is where it gets complicated.

Although Dassault's website promises the ability to mount "Customer-selected weapons", the Rafale is currently outfitted to handle predominantly French made missiles. It will be compatible with the upcoming MBDA Meteor, but will only share a one-way datalink with the missile, rather than the two-way datalink the Meteor will have with the Gripen and Typhoon.

The Rafale's weapon compatibility isn't such a big deal for India, it currently flies the Dassault Mirage and is already equipped with a stockpile of French munitions. Canada, however, would have to make the decision to either replace our current stockpile of American AMRAAMs, Sidewinders, Mavericks, and Harpoons for French Micas, Hammers, and Exocets; or wait (and pay) for the Rafale to be tested and cleared for Canada's current weapon stockpile. Any price advantage the the Rafale has over the Typhoon could easily be eliminated by extra costs inherited with its weapon systems."

Catch22 · Feb 28, 2013

Thanks a lot Matt. There's no way we'd replace the weapon stockpile. Depending on the costs to have everything tested, we'd have to go that route. There has also been talk of Dassault allowing us to build most of our order here, but I don't know if we really have the facilities for it.

F-35 grounded - again

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman 1st Class

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Captain

Glock Perfection

Colonel

Glock Perfection

Captain

Glock Perfection

Captain

Glock Perfection

Captain

Glock Perfection

Captain

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Glock Perfection

Glock Perfection

Major

Glock Perfection

Attachments

Major

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads