F-35 grounded - again
- Thread starter ivanotter
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Catch22
Major
Haha well that'd be nice but I can't see it happening. It would be nice to see some form of deal though.
Here in the NL we have been debating the purchase of the F35 for years. Problem is manly the increase in price which we did not anticipate at the start.I'm wondering if we shouldn't have bought the eurofighter instead. We'd already have them, and our money would have stayed mainly in 'our own' Europe ( no offence meant to the Americans). I know the F35 is the newer generation fighter, but I actually wonder if that would do us any good. After all the missions usually consists of things like Yougoslavia and Afganisthan. Hardly places where you would need stealth technology.
wuzak
Captain
Interesting.
The Rafale has, from my count, 13 hardpoints.
The F-35 has 10 hard points, but only 4 in internal bays. Load up some of the external hardpoints and the stealth advantage is gone or reduced.
The Rafale has, from my count, 13 hardpoints.
The F-35 has 10 hard points, but only 4 in internal bays. Load up some of the external hardpoints and the stealth advantage is gone or reduced.
wuzak
Captain
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?
Australia already has 24 Super Hornets. They replaced F-111s (!). Some have been configured such that they can be converted to EF-18G Growlers at a later date.
With the delays and costs of the F-35 rising, Australia has enquired about purchasing 24 more F-18Fs. As a stop gap to replace the F/A-18As that we got in the '80s. I suppose the theory was to have soem airframe compatibility, but my understanding is that there is minimal common parts.
My concern is that the air to air performance of the F/A-18As wasn't world's best when new, that the F-18Fs are better but still not the best of its contemporaries.
I guess the Typhoon is better as an air to air platform, but the Rafale better as an all-round platform (better strike ability than the Typhoon)?
Matt308
Glock Perfection
- Thread starter
- #68
ivanotter
Airman 1st Class
BBC again:
""The Pentagon has said it will resume flights on its F-35 fighter jets, after the whole fleet was grounded last week.
A cracked turbine blade found on a plane prompted the suspension. But tests showed that this was a "unique" problem and not a design flaw, engine maker Pratt and Whitney said."""
""Extensive tests on the plane's engine revealed the crack was a result of the "unique operating environment" of the test flight, and was not a widespread issue, he added.
The engine had been running at high temperatures for four times longer than a normal F-35 flight, causing a separation of the "grain boundary" on one blade, Mr Bates explained."""
""The construction of the plane has been plagued by problems - it is seven years behind schedule and has required numerous re-designs because of delays in software delivery and bulkhead cracks."""
Well, yes.
It does raise a few questions: What is 4 times as long as a "normal" flight? Can it cross the Atlantic after a few refuelings? or is that too long?
It is not really clear to me at least if this is serious or just very "unique"? I really would not have something "unique" happening to my car for example.
seven yers behind schedule? is it going to be overtaken by competition out there?
Ivan
""The Pentagon has said it will resume flights on its F-35 fighter jets, after the whole fleet was grounded last week.
A cracked turbine blade found on a plane prompted the suspension. But tests showed that this was a "unique" problem and not a design flaw, engine maker Pratt and Whitney said."""
""Extensive tests on the plane's engine revealed the crack was a result of the "unique operating environment" of the test flight, and was not a widespread issue, he added.
The engine had been running at high temperatures for four times longer than a normal F-35 flight, causing a separation of the "grain boundary" on one blade, Mr Bates explained."""
""The construction of the plane has been plagued by problems - it is seven years behind schedule and has required numerous re-designs because of delays in software delivery and bulkhead cracks."""
Well, yes.
It does raise a few questions: What is 4 times as long as a "normal" flight? Can it cross the Atlantic after a few refuelings? or is that too long?
It is not really clear to me at least if this is serious or just very "unique"? I really would not have something "unique" happening to my car for example.
seven yers behind schedule? is it going to be overtaken by competition out there?
Ivan
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Who knows. The B model was grounded on Feb 12 and is now subsequently flying. Cause was an improperly crimped hydraulic line to swing nozzle assembly. That was supposedly "unique" too. You have to understand the safety measures that the three services impose (most strict being US Navy... those guys don't mess around with anything until thoroughly investigated).
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And discovering these issues "DURING" flight test are where they should be discovered. Keep in mind that that those aircraft at EDW are being "used and abused" to the point of breaking, all part of the process but the stupid press doesn't see it that way.
BTW....
Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future - Chicago Tribune
BTW....
Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future - Chicago Tribune
mikewint
Captain
FBJ, Excuse my one-string-banjo again, but "used and abused", is that not exacty what a WARplane would be faced with in a war? Don't think the enemy allows timeouts for maintainence and repair. Perhaps I am wrong but "takes a licking and keeps on ticking" has to be #! criteria for anything military, tied only with crew survivability.
Don't know if any of you remember the old M113s where the commander had to stand up and out of the vehicle in order to fire the 50cal. Brilliant design, wana guess how many vehicle commanders survived their first use in battle?
Don't know if any of you remember the old M113s where the commander had to stand up and out of the vehicle in order to fire the 50cal. Brilliant design, wana guess how many vehicle commanders survived their first use in battle?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
What is being attempted in flight test is ensuring that the aircraft can "take a licking and keep on ticking" and in some instances pushed outside an enviornment it would never see in normal operation. As stated, this is the time to identify any flaws or potential flaws as the aircraft is pushed to its limit.
mikewint
Captain
One line concerns me "it would neer see in normal operations" the is nothing normal in a war. Rememer the orginal Bradley Fighting Vehicle? The M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting vehicle is a three million dollar version of the World War II Sherman tank, with room in the back for six guys. It weighs 30 tons, so its too heavy to be picked up by any helicopter and too large to be carried by a C-130, and is not truly amphibious. It's expensive to operate, expensive to maintain, and worst of all, its a huge vehicle with aluminum (a flamable metal like magnesium) armor and packed with explosive TOW missiles and internal fuel tanks. The only country willing to take the Bradley was Saudi Arabia and we had to GIVE them 400.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Don't know what to say expect an F-35 obviously isn't a Bradley. When an aircraft it test flown, it's pushed to its limits. Engine and airframe damage CAN and WILL occur, that's why you have a test flight program. The XP-80 had it's air intake cave in before the first flight, FOD'ed the engine and delayed the flight test program - Lockheed had to go back and strengthen the air intake.
The point here is politicans and the media are taking these occurences and dooming the aircraft based on this situation. Again point is, you WANT this to occur now, not during a major conflict in 120 degree heat or over the North Pole.
wuzak
Captain
Those guys are the guys that bought into the JSF program sight unseen without an evaluative process.
I still don't think the F-35 is right for Australia.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Well it depends what you think Australia needs. The F-35 is not designed to be a world class air to air fighter. Even in it's strike role i think you're going to find this aircraft will carry smaller bombs that can be delivered very accurately. As far as the price tag - it's going to depend on the model. It's funny though, the same thing is being said about Canada's participation in the F-35 program (Those guys are the guys that bought into the JSF program sight unseen without an evaluative process. )
mikewint
Captain
FBJ, Exactly. My point is that now that it is known that this can happen what if anything will be done? The Bradley at $8.9 million is a specific case. When the vulnerability of the Bradley was pointed out the Pentagon's reply was that surviving an RPG was "not in the Bradley's mission profile" it only had to be able to survive small arms fire. The first M-16s we received, we were told: "These new rifles are so finely made they never need to be cleaned"; the initial Phantom jets w/o cannon because "Jets will never dogfight again"; Hueys with no defensive armament cause who'd shoot at a defenseless helo picking up troops
I have no problem spending billions to give our soldiers the best of the best and KISS never aplied more than when you are talking war machines, air, water, land so yea, beat the cr+p out of them but then fix it
I have no problem spending billions to give our soldiers the best of the best and KISS never aplied more than when you are talking war machines, air, water, land so yea, beat the cr+p out of them but then fix it
Matt308
Glock Perfection
For those not familiar with modern design assurance methodologies for airframes, complex hardware, system analyses and software... then you might not understand that the world has embraced a top-down and bottom-up requirements methodology which emphasizes:
* configuration management
* quality assurance
* high to low level requirements validation and verification
* structural coverage
* process assurance
* design data
* test procedures
* etc
Complex hardware and software acquisitions have a whole engineering complexity all to their own. One might argue that such engineering discipline is overkill, but then again creation of airframes with capabilities even approaching the A320, Mirage 2000 or F-16 would be unachievable.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Stick to the facts.
1) This aircraft for whatever reason is hugely expensive.
2) Its not a great AC in any category.
3) The Marines have totally screwed this up by demanding AC that we can no longer afford.
4) UAV's for a fraction of the cost are a knockin' at the door.
1) This aircraft for whatever reason is hugely expensive.
2) Its not a great AC in any category.
3) The Marines have totally screwed this up by demanding AC that we can no longer afford.
4) UAV's for a fraction of the cost are a knockin' at the door.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Oh, do tell...
