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
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... From what I've seen of Russian aircraft, its not the build quality that causes the low serviceability, but poor maintenance practices."
Spot on. Turn the Israelis and the Indians loose on Soviet platforms and you really have something.
Spot on. Turn the Israelis and the Indians loose on Soviet platforms and you really have something.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Sure do... American technology on post-Soviet platforms. While I don't dismiss IAI capabilities, I do question their technology transfer.
Indians? Not so much. The Tejas is a 30yo POS. And they are so desparate for technology transfer that they are holding weapon platform acquisition hostage for indigenous production capability. Not unlike any other nation, but Indian technology is not world class... yet.
Indians? Not so much. The Tejas is a 30yo POS. And they are so desparate for technology transfer that they are holding weapon platform acquisition hostage for indigenous production capability. Not unlike any other nation, but Indian technology is not world class... yet.
buffnut453
Captain
Ok, I realise the following is deliberately provocative and entirely beyond the realms of fantasy but...let's say that the US decides it's cheaper and less risky to buy Su-35s (or similar variants) and kit them out with P&W engines and US avionics. The other partners in the F-35 programme are, by default, forced to follow suit as there's no other real alternative out there. So the US, UK, Australia, half of NATO etc all are beholden to the Russian aircraft industry. The aircraft are delivered on-time and on-budget and everybody cheers. Then we come up against the next "local" conflagration...let's say it's in 5 years time and Libya has reverted back to a more totalitarian regime but the people have, again, rebelled and the Government uses force to suppress the people. The whole of the UN pushes for military action against the Libyan Government but China abstains and Russia votes "no" because, taking the moral high ground, "it's wrong to get involved in another country's internal affairs." The political crisis deepens and NATO threatens to deploy Su-35s to provide both air defence and ground attack aircraft to Italy for operations over Libya. Russian doesn't like this and so immediately imposes sanctions on the West and cuts off the supply of any spares associated with Western-operated Su-35s, effectively holding our combat capability hostage. Now, could we overcome such actions? Yes, absolutely. Iran managed to keep their F-14 fleet operating for years without US spares. However, it would create a very awkward situation and give Russia a political lever at the UN that would be highly embarrassing to the Western world.
Like I said...provocative and impossibly unlikely but Russia's track record of voting against the flow in the UN would, IMHO, make any purchase of Russian military equipment by NATO or other Western nations a very loaded political issue.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... Russia's track record of voting against the flow in the UN would, IMHO, make any purchase of Russian military equipment by NATO or other Western nations a very loaded political issue."
I agree .... but the Finn in me says .... work with what you got ... and I might rather have 30 Sukhoi's with Canadian pilots and ground crew than 5 F-35's with Canadian pilots and ground crew. Notice I said "might". I'm not sure.
As for India - they've selected the French Raffele - but only the first couple of dozen will be built in France, the balance in India, by Hindustan. Their strategy clearly is to get more than just ex-Soviet technology transferred
I agree .... but the Finn in me says .... work with what you got ... and I might rather have 30 Sukhoi's with Canadian pilots and ground crew than 5 F-35's with Canadian pilots and ground crew. Notice I said "might". I'm not sure.
As for India - they've selected the French Raffele - but only the first couple of dozen will be built in France, the balance in India, by Hindustan. Their strategy clearly is to get more than just ex-Soviet technology transferred
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #126
ivanotter
Airman 1st Class
This topic has surely gained a life of its own now.
I just intended to draw the forum's attention to the fact that the F-35 had been grounded, for those not having seen it at that time.
Very intersting this. It seems we re-evaluate the F-35 programme every six months or so. Not a bad thing in itself.
To me, there is still something that tells me that a project costing $400 bn and some seven years late might not come off at all. Project management experience tells me it might be a duck already. But let's see.
The other aspect - to me - are the long development times. I am still not convinced (even by FLB) that a 15 year development cycle is natural and has come down from high altar or something. I am still rather convinced that the one who can shorten it dramatically will be a winner.
With 15 years of development I do see that we are building a platform for what was, not what will be coming or even what is.
Yes, what a wonderful world if US and NATO will standardise on Soviet equipment! that should create a different world.
I found an interesting article on BBC: Are wars winnable (in this new world where wars among governments are not so likely anymore).
I don't know if this works, but it is here:
BBC News - Spent force: Are wars still winnable?
Where will F-35 fit into this?
Maybe we should re-evaluate the "sailor-inhalor" , the Boeing contender to the F-35 - the glorious X-32.
Ivan
I just intended to draw the forum's attention to the fact that the F-35 had been grounded, for those not having seen it at that time.
Very intersting this. It seems we re-evaluate the F-35 programme every six months or so. Not a bad thing in itself.
To me, there is still something that tells me that a project costing $400 bn and some seven years late might not come off at all. Project management experience tells me it might be a duck already. But let's see.
The other aspect - to me - are the long development times. I am still not convinced (even by FLB) that a 15 year development cycle is natural and has come down from high altar or something. I am still rather convinced that the one who can shorten it dramatically will be a winner.
With 15 years of development I do see that we are building a platform for what was, not what will be coming or even what is.
Yes, what a wonderful world if US and NATO will standardise on Soviet equipment! that should create a different world.
I found an interesting article on BBC: Are wars winnable (in this new world where wars among governments are not so likely anymore).
I don't know if this works, but it is here:
BBC News - Spent force: Are wars still winnable?
Where will F-35 fit into this?
Maybe we should re-evaluate the "sailor-inhalor" , the Boeing contender to the F-35 - the glorious X-32.
Ivan
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... Are wars winnable"
Who knows ... depends on the war, eh,
... but sometimes weapons prevent wars from happening ..... think A-bomb. An F-35 streaking across Tehran at 200 meters off the deck might give some in the regime there cause to reconsider and possibly change their underwear ....
Who knows ... depends on the war, eh,
... but sometimes weapons prevent wars from happening ..... think A-bomb. An F-35 streaking across Tehran at 200 meters off the deck might give some in the regime there cause to reconsider and possibly change their underwear ....
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
This aircraft was a total POS. During the hovering tests Boeing took the landing gear doors off so it was able to meet some of the test requirements. In concept the F-35 is very "do-able" and the X-35 proved this hands down and basically "smoked" the X-32 during competion.
"The contract for System Development and Demonstration (SDD) was awarded on 26 October 2001 to Lockheed Martin, whose X-35 beat the Boeing X-32. One of the main reasons for this choice appears to have been the method of achieving STOVL flight, with the Department of Defense judging that the higher performance lift fan system was worth the extra risk. When near to the ground, the Boeing X-32 suffered from the problem of hot air from the exhaust circulating back to the main engine, which caused the thrust to weaken and the engine to overheat"
Joint Strike Fighter program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Thread starter
- #129
ivanotter
Airman 1st Class
I do agree, the X32 is not an option.
I am convinced that Boeing designed it so ugly so they would lose the competition. Who in their right mind could come up with that monstrosity. Joking a little bit on that, though.
That said, was the avionics worse or the same with the X32? if you hurl $400 bn at the X32, would it be better?
$400 bn can afer all buy a few things.
Ivan
I am convinced that Boeing designed it so ugly so they would lose the competition. Who in their right mind could come up with that monstrosity. Joking a little bit on that, though.
That said, was the avionics worse or the same with the X32? if you hurl $400 bn at the X32, would it be better?
$400 bn can afer all buy a few things.
Ivan
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
This was written before the contract was awarded - mind you it only deals with the testbeds.
http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/JSFOBrien.pdf
http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/JSFOBrien.pdf
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
F-35 design problems make night flying impossible, increase risk of being shot down, U.S. pilots warn | Canada | News | National Post
In the national post a Canadian new paper.
In the national post a Canadian new paper.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
buffnut453
Captain
What a total horlicks of a headline. Talk about misleading people. It's not "design problems" that make night flying impossible, simply that flight testing has not reached the stage where the aircraft is fully cleared for night/all weather operations. Also, it's hardly unusual to get very experienced pilots involved in flying a brand new aircraft at this stage of development. I also like the interpretation of "impedes" rear visibility as being "difficult if not impossible to see behind" due to the headrest. Just once I wish a newspaper would actually stop scare-mongering and actually take the time to report based on an understanding of how things happen in the real world of aircraft development.
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
I think they are trying to Kill the F-35.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
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.
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.
wuzak
Captain
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.
wuzak
Captain
I wouldn't advocate the US buying Russian equipment.
It is a different matter for smaller countries, like Australia, who are trying to fulfil all fighter and/or bomber roles with the F-35. The US still has F-22s, and can put them back into production if need be.
wuzak
Captain
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.
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.
Sidewinders are 50 years old(!). There is a replacement used by some NATO countries, but not, apparently, the US or Australia.
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.
Other issues:
Other costs associated with the F-35 (for Australia) is that we will likely need to double our tanker fleet.
Air to surface missiles cannot be carried internally. So an anti-shipping strike would leave the F-35 without its stealth cloak.
fubar57
General
Catch22
Major
Well at least the NDP critic isn't foolish and thinks we should extend the CF-18s.
