F-35 grounded - again

[fubar57]

I'm not as tech savvy as most of the guys discussing this thread but a lot of the RCAF flying is up north and with two engines you have a chance to get home. Also, how stealthy does the RCAF have to be to get close to a rusty old freighter full of illegal immigrants from Asia.

Geo

 

[ivanotter]

Good article, but it does not really say anything.

The headrest: Is it difficult to change? easy? implications.

"panning" the F-35? not really.

However, I think it is time for the different players (ok, they do it all the time) to look at the requirements now and through the next 15 years. Maybe that will un-lock the financial burdens which will still come.

Hurling good money after bad has never been a winning strategy. If it is not working, cut the loss, grin hysterically for a little while, and then get onto something else.

Is the combination of Eurofighter and Super Hornet an option for Australia? Canada?
Rafale in the mix?

Tell the USMC that the hover capability is great but not at the price asked for it.

RN: there is a problem there, but is it worth burning another hundred of billions on? mnaybe a small amount of that can go into a re-design (or re-build even).

It is not saying that the F-35 is the only option. Some options might not be working well, others might. But we won't know if we just close our eyes to any other option and "full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes."

Ivan

 

[Matt308]

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This is a sorry excuse of an aircraft. It's shaping up to be worse than the F111 fiasco. At least out of that, we got the Tomcat and Eagle.

In this, we get nothing, but a soured attitude by the taxpayer and congress. The damage that's being inflicted by this program is starting to add up.

Again, your baseless opinion. Deficiencies are showing up in flight testing, EXACTLY WHERE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE EXPOSED! You show me ANY aircraft, including a drone that had a perfect flight test program?!?!?!


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApX5hWorQCc


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8XakLMAm_U


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JkcrtvN60s


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6yVU_yYtEc

"By October 29, 1973, 11 of the 12 Category I Eagles had flown, and a maximum speed of Mach 2.3 and an altitude of 60,000 feet had been reached. Remarkably, very few problems were encountered during flight testing. However, early in the test program, problems were encountered with buffeting and wing loading problems at certain altitudes. The solution to the problem was found to be the removal of four square feet in wing area diagonally from the wing tip, giving the Eagle its characteristic raked wingtips. A flutter problem discovered during wind tunnel testing required that a dogtooth be cut into the leading edge of the horizontal tail. The dorsal airbrake was found to cause excessive buffeting when it was in the fully-open position, and it was found necessary to increase its area from 20 to 31 square feet so that the required drag could be achieved with lower extension angles."

"The introduction of the F-15 into USAF service was not without its problems. The pilots at Luke AFB with the Tactical Training Wing found that they could not mount the planned number of sorties. There were difficulties with parts and maintenance, but the most serious problem was with the engines. The Air Force had underestimated the number of powercycles per sortie and had not realized how much the Eagle's maneuvering capabilities would result in frequent abrupt changes in throttle setting. This caused unexpectedly high wear on key engine components, resulting in frequent failures of key engine components such as first-stage turbine blades. These problems could be corrected by more careful maintenance and closer attention to quality control during manufacturing of engine components. However, the most serious problem was stagnation stalling.

There were frequent groundings and delays in engine deliveries while an attempt was made to fix these problem. Strikes at two major subcontractors delayed the delivery of engines. By the end of 1979, the USAF was forced to accept engineless F-15 airframes and place them in storage until sufficient numbers of engines could be delivered. A massive effort by Pratt Whitney helped to alleviate this problem, but the F-15 suffered from an engine shortage for a long time."

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f15_6.html

 

[ivanotter]

I do believe that deficiences and all things ought to be found in a test programme. It would be rather boring to discover things in a combat situation ("blue screen" on the computer monitor springs to mind, but that is just a horror thing).

We should not have a situation where lives are lost due to a less than thorough test plan.

Are the things discovered "more" or are they "less" than other projects of similar type? Or did we have not have the same abilities to test things (computer simulations, etc) as we have now; hence we tested less and found less?

The other point is probably that if a country only have X amount of money and the F-35 keeps increasing in price, will they end up with simply too few aircraft to do the job? If you budget for X number of airframes and end up with significantly less, you would simply run out of airframes. Numbers are after all also essential.

What will the budget cuts in the US do the project? that I think is the most significant risk to the entire project. Is Obama OK with $400 bn and more to come?

Yours,

 

[Matt308]

Just read the final report on the LPT crack. Looks like it was a manufacturing defect and will NOT impact the flight test schedule like the engine issue for the B model in the past.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I do believe that deficiences and all things ought to be found in a test programme. It would be rather boring to discover things in a combat situation ("blue screen" on the computer monitor springs to mind, but that is just a horror thing).

Exactly

We should not have a situation where lives are lost due to a less than thorough test plan.

That's why god created "test pilots." As mentioned earlier, I think this is going to be the most extensively tested aircraft in aviation history.

Are the things discovered "more" or are they "less" than other projects of similar type? Or did we have not have the same abilities to test things (computer simulations, etc) as we have now; hence we tested less and found less?

Not all the time. There are certain systems that have to be flown operationaly to be verified

The other point is probably that if a country only have X amount of money and the F-35 keeps increasing in price, will they end up with simply too few aircraft to do the job? If you budget for X number of airframes and end up with significantly less, you would simply run out of airframes. Numbers are after all also essential.

What will the budget cuts in the US do the project? that I think is the most significant risk to the entire project. Is Obama OK with $400 bn and more to come?

Yours,

A whole other ball game to consider - again, no one is really saying how and were cost increases will affect forigen aircraft sales. I think the fairest assesment anyone can make about F-35 costs is to see the price tag being charged to the specific customer and also consider their part in production and how much offset is being given back to them. At that point one could really determine how much this thing costs.

 

[Matt308]

The current kerfuffle is revolving around the recurring costs associated with maintenance and data fusion. LM's claims are apparently significantly different than DoD's, but both sides are not releasing information until later this month. This is the same issue that is killing Global Hawk. Fantastic airframe and sensor suite, but the recurring costs for data integration is though the roof and USAF is itching to kill it. I hope the same situation doesnt arise with F-35. Given the bandwidth difference between the two, not likely to happen. But don't know enough about the maintenance side of things. Will be interesting to see what is released.

 

[buffnut453]

To be fair, in the article itself they do say that the required testing has yet to be completed, not that there is a design fault.

But will the average person understand the subtlety of what that means? Bottom line is the newspaper is deliberately misleading with its headline to drum up more negativity about the programme.

 

[Catch22]

But will the average person understand the subtlety of what that means? Bottom line is the newspaper is deliberately misleading with its headline to drum up more negativity about the programme.

That's certainly what's been happening on other sites I frequent. A lot of people see these articles and take them as gospel, while really they're being mislead.

 

[gumbyk]

Just read the final report on the LPT crack. Looks like it was a manufacturing defect and will NOT impact the flight test schedule like the engine issue for the B model in the past.

Yeah, and with a test airframe, which was pushed waay beyond the normal flight envelope.

 

[Catch22]

A couple family members mentioned they saw on the news that the F-35 is now out of contention for Canada due to cost, but I have been unable to find anything online to confirm it, as I missed it myself. Has anyone heard similarly?

 

[buffnut453]

I am interested to see where you think the F-35 "total package still beats the Flanker series in the air-to-air role". It certainly won't outfly it in the traditional sense.

But an aircraft as a system-of-systems is more than just the airframe (assuming your assertion is correct that the F-35 can't outmanouevre the Su-35 which I'm not sure you can say with certainty). Modern air combat isn't so much about close-in knife fights - it's about killing the other guy at maximum range. The sensor package in the F-35, coupled with its low-observability, should mean it can schwack (that's a technical term) most opposition before it's even seen/detected.

Missile wise in the air to air role the F-35 will likely carry 2 AMRAAMs and 2 sidewinders in the internal bays. Carrying extra externally ruins the stealth profile. F-35 is less likely to be able to defeat a missile by manoeuvring than the Su-35. That may be impossible anyway, I don't know.

Aircraft can't outmanoeuvre modern air-to-air missiles. Not even your much-vaunted Su-35.

Sidewinders are 50 years old(!). There is a replacement used by some NATO countries, but not, apparently, the US or Australia.

So what? Sidewinder is a bolt-on missile requiring less integration with an aircraft's systems than pretty much any other AAM out there. They put sidewinders on Nimrods during the Falklands Conflict for goodness' sake! I agree the Sidewinder isn't the greatest short-range AAM but it's not like we're still flying with the original variants, indeed I'm pretty certain there isn't a single common component between the original Sidewinder and those currently in the front-line. If Australia uses Sidewinders today, I imagine they would still use Sidewinders on Su-35s unless you're suggesting that Australia also replaces all its current missile inventory with Russian alternatives?

The F-35A has a gun (-B and -C I understand don't). If it comes down to using this to try to shoot down a Flanker I would think the F-35 is well and truly stuffed.

As mentioned before, modern air combat isn't about the close-in knife fight. That said, since Australia is getting the F-35A you have nothing to worry about, correct?

Other issues:
Other costs associated with the F-35 (for Australia) is that we will likely need to double our tanker fleet.

Compared to what? According to that most utterly reliable of sources, Wikipedia, the F-35 has a longer combat radius than the F/A-18 it's replacing. Not sure I understand your logic here.

Air to surface missiles cannot be carried internally. So an anti-shipping strike would leave the F-35 without its stealth cloak.

No, it would reduce the effectiveness of it. The F-35 would still have a smaller radar cross section than a non-stealth design because the major radar returns (like from the engine front) are mitigated.

 

[Matt308]

Okay gents.

F-35B and C models have an external gun. Remember this is supposed to be a penetrator platform firstmost. Once relative airspace superiority is achieved, then external weapon storage is the norm. Block 5 allows 6 AIM-120s stored internally. Followed by JSOW, JDAM, Brimstone and SDBII with glide bomb capability. To say that this is a handicap is ludicrous. AIM-9X with EOTS give an over the shoulder shot lock-on and kill capability.

Again, if the F-35 is used as a front line air superiority fighter solely for a phonebooth knife fight (gun only) there is an issue, but that is not her role. The F-35 is supposed to be used as a penetration platform that exploits not only stealth, but weapon and sensor fusion to exact the maximum impact from all available assets.

 

[beaupower32]

The aircraft was AF-02. It is a flight science aircraft, which test all flight performance envelopes. From turns, to climbs and dives. Everything. Also includes speed flights. Lots of speed, lots of time in After Burner. The engine has been used and abused. Pratt found it on a routine inspection they always do here. It was a caution to ground the aircraft to make sure none of the other jets were affected.

The Lift fan actually has a clutch connecting it to the drive shaft. Think of a clutch on your car connection the PTO shaft. Same idea.

On some good news, we just Got our frist STOVL model here at Edwards. I am lucky enough to be assigned to it. BF-17 is the tail number. We all are very excited...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The aircraft was AF-02. It is a flight science aircraft, which test all flight performance envelopes. From turns, to climbs and dives. Everything. Also includes speed flights. Lots of speed, lots of time in After Burner. The engine has been used and abused. Pratt found it on a routine inspection they always do here. It was a caution to ground the aircraft to make sure none of the other jets were affected.

The Lift fan actually has a clutch connecting it to the drive shaft. Think of a clutch on your car connection the PTO shaft. Same idea.

On some good news, we just Got our frist STOVL model here at Edwards. I am lucky enough to be assigned to it. BF-17 is the tail number. We all are very excited...

Gents - take heed in what this man tells us - he's right there on the front line!!!!!!

 

[wuzak]

But an aircraft as a system-of-systems is more than just the airframe

That is very true.

But surely better airframes make for better aircraft?

(assuming your assertion is correct that the F-35 can't outmanouevre the Su-35 which I'm not sure you can say with certainty)

Do you actually think the F-35 is anywhere near as agile as the Su-35?

Wing loading 408kg/m² loaded for the Su-35 vs 526kg/m² for the F-35. 296kg/m² vs 311kg/m² empty. Su-35 has 2d thrust vectoring nozzles, the F-35 doesn't.

Modern air combat isn't so much about close-in knife fights - it's about killing the other guy at maximum range. The sensor package in the F-35, coupled with its low-observability, should mean it can schwack (that's a technical term) most opposition before it's even seen/detected.

That is the dream. But is it the reality?

It all comes down to the stealth profile. Do you think that stealth won't be defeated in the life of the F-35? Or even by the time it enters service for Australia (around 2018-202)? Or even now?

With 2 medium range missiles on board the F-35 will soon be in a knife fight if there are more than 2 enemy aircraft and/or the missiles aren't 100% accurate.

Aircraft can't outmanoeuvre modern air-to-air missiles. Not even your much-vaunted Su-35.

Fair enough. I wasn't sure.

So what? Sidewinder is a bolt-on missile requiring less integration with an aircraft's systems than pretty much any other AAM out there. They put sidewinders on Nimrods during the Falklands Conflict for goodness' sake! I agree the Sidewinder isn't the greatest short-range AAM but it's not like we're still flying with the original variants, indeed I'm pretty certain there isn't a single common component between the original Sidewinder and those currently in the front-line. If Australia uses Sidewinders today, I imagine they would still use Sidewinders on Su-35s unless you're suggesting that Australia also replaces all its current missile inventory with Russian alternatives?

I was kinda thinking about the outmanoeuvring part. Does that still apply to the Sidewinder?

As mentioned before, modern air combat isn't about the close-in knife fight. That said, since Australia is getting the F-35A you have nothing to worry about, correct?

If it isn't needed, why does it have one?

Compared to what? According to that most utterly reliable of sources, Wikipedia, the F-35 has a longer combat radius than the F/A-18 it's replacing. Not sure I understand your logic here.

Compared to the F-111s that the F-35s are also replacing (albeit indirectly. As an interim replacement we got F-18Fs, which also require more tankers than previously).

No, it would reduce the effectiveness of it. The F-35 would still have a smaller radar cross section than a non-stealth design because the major radar returns (like from the engine front) are mitigated.

Still, less effective than internal carriage for the F-35, meaning more likely being detected and shot down.

 

[fubar57]

A couple family members mentioned they saw on the news that the F-35 is now out of contention for Canada due to cost, but I have been unable to find anything online to confirm it, as I missed it myself. Has anyone heard similarly?

Found this from the Ottawa Citizen:
Federal government cancels F-35 fighter purchase

Geo

 

[beaupower32]

Gents - take heed in what this man tells us - he's right there on the front line!!!!!!

Will be carefull of what I do post. We are all worried about cost along with everyone else. We are right now in the business of flight testing. All planes have done it. And I am sure all have been over budget at one point. We here at Edwards take our jobs very seriously. I have talked to all the pilots while strapping them into and getting them out of the seats. They all love the F-35. All of them have combat time in theater, and all have said they would love to have the F-35 over there. Also, Our operational and Test guys here at edwards and at nellis just got their jets. Now the operational testing will commence. Prices of the planes are going down. May not be noticeable, but they are. Better be ready guys. F-35 is going to be around a while. One little note, our contract here at edwards is paid for quite a few years to follow. That means lots of flying, lots of testing.....


The F-35 is not ment to be a dog fighter. Never has. It is to work side by side with the F-22. F-22 does all the air to air. F-35 is ment to get in, drop pay load, and get out. Air to air missles are for self-defence if things get hairy. But if it needs to, the F-35 can dog fight....


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSMNOaZVFaA Best video that I know to kinda describe the mission of the F-35.....

 

[beaupower32]

Okay gents.

The F-35 is supposed to be used as a penetration platform that exploits not only stealth, but weapon and sensor fusion to exact the maximum impact from all available assets.

Exactly!!!!