New F-35 Report

[pbehn]

I thought the report was testing the helmet and sighting system as well as the planes performance. The report found some problems, are these problems insurmountable? I dont think so.

The F 35 was designed with a philosophy, that is to engage at long range (why else does it use stealth, stealth doesnt work on eyes) having designed with that philosophy in mind it is tested in a worst case scenario in visual range. I am sure the info will be useful to determine modifications to the F 35 and tactics for its use but I dont see how it says the F 35 is a dud.

 

[Milosh]

There is an old saying that ends 'master of none'.

 

[Greyman]

There is an old saying that ends 'master of none'.

I don't think anyone can afford to develop and purchase a fleet of 'masters' anymore.

 

[Juha]

The problem with reliance with BVR combat is that it only need a president to say that BVR isn't allowed and you have only VR option left, look at LBJ and Vietnam.

 

[buffnut453]

The problem with reliance with BVR combat is that it only need a president to say that BVR isn't allowed and you have only VR option left, look at LBJ and Vietnam.

Given the improvements in operational data sharing (eg between AWACS and fighters as well as fighter-to-fighter) and massive leaps in radar technology since the LBJ era, coupled with the flaws inherent in a visual engagement (the Blackhawk shootdowns over Northern Iraq anyone?), I think the likelihood of ROE limiting engagements to the visual domain as being highly unlikely.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If they use the F-35 as a stand-off attack platform or interdiction role, it will be successful. What I'm not too sure of is why we stopped buying the F-22 and decided to throw all our eggs into the attack basket only, and why we paid so much for it.

That's what is is designed for!!!!
The F-22 was designed from the start to be an air-to-air fighter - PERIOD! the air to ground role is secondary and if you look at the loadouts of both aircraft the F-35 is WAY more capable in the stike role, again it's primary role

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Actually Joe, I worked for Parker -Hannifin for 6 years, part of that time on the F-35. I know some weaknesses, but there is no point discussing them since I also left there in 2011 and no longer have any access to insider information. If some of the previous weaknesses have not been a dressed, then it has some very specific weaknesses. The Test pilots that briefed us several times even mentioned the issues about flying with low fuel levels.

Greg, I worked for LMCO for 12 years, supplier quality control. I used to work with Parker and I could tell you that the only information suppliers were given were issues specific to their product. If you heard about other issues they were rumors and unofficial. Unless you were at the factory or at EDW flight test you had little knowledge of what went on. I worked a project in 2011 where I was at EDW, right next to F-35 flight test in SAW the aircraft operate and issues being fixed. - 4 years later all these issues are just about history and this aircraft is now being deployed, so I thing this more than shows that the USAF and the contractor completed due diligence to give the taxpayer what they asked for.

Again, if they have corrected any of these faults over the last 4 years, I'd have no real way to know. There were no corrective actions outstanding when I departed but I know of about 5 - 6 specifric weaknesses that needed them.

I think that tells you something!

You and I may feel exactly opposite about the F-35, but I'm not in a position to argue from a standpoint of being up to date on it at this time.

My former roommate designed the X-35 electrical system. I know people who have been on this program before 2000. I seen the first flight and first hover and work with pilots who have either been on the program or are soon to go there. There is little apprehension about the deployment of this aircraft and its capabilities

Obviously I'm not in charge of the program or it would be in serious trouble. The way it looks from here is we're going to get this thing whether or not the F-35 likers or haters are right.

This "thing" will turn into the most deadly combat aircraft ever built, that's what despite all the BS bad press there's several hundred built. Italy just rolled out their first machine, kind of funny that other partner countries who could have easily walked away when the Pierre Spray lead BS brigade stated their rants haven't

Once it is in service, and I assume that to be the case, we'll have an opportunity to see how it flies or flops if it ever gets into serious combat with a credible threat aircraft. I'm assuming it can handle the older, less-capable threats from limited war type opponents. The F-15 and Su-27 / 35 series have been the top fighter predators for 3+ decades, but they've not had much in the way of face-to-face fights. The F-35 may well wind up the same way versus credible threat aircraft in its lservice lifetime. That would be nice since it would mean no major conflitcs during its service career.

Again, why are you trying to compare the F-35 to dedicated air to air fighters? Why don't you try comparing the f-35 to the F-15E, Su 34 or even the Shenyang J-16????

 

[FLYBOYJ]

A little OT, but how likely is it that the F-22 will go back into production?

Slim and none - the tooling to still available but unless there is a massive arms build up there will be no more F-22s built

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I can't think of one where an F-100 would beat an F-16. The F-16 accelerates WAY better, the software will max-performance turn it anytime, and it can extend and escape or attack as it choses. The corner speed for an F-100 is very smiliar to the corner speed of an F-16 in dogfight mode. Both are near 450 KIAS or so, and an F-16 would never slow down to 350 KIAS to engage an F-100 unless the pilot has a severe hangover and is out of practice, both at the same time.

My father in law commanded the last operational F-106 unit in the USAF, they were used to chase the B-1 during production. They got "side work" to do dissimilar aircraft combat with various guard units who got the F-15 during the late 1980s, early 1990s. Turn off radars and fight VR and he's beat F-15 pilots when the cards were stacked against them. You say an F-100 would never beat an F-16, well your last comment "an F-16 would never slow down to 350 KIAS to engage an F-100 unless the pilot has a severe hangover and is out of practice, both at the same time" just about describes how this BS test was stacked up against the F-35

 

[FLYBOYJ]

We first need to assume the mantra of: "the F-35 is NOT a dogfighter...the F-35 is NOT a dogfighter..."

to repeat...

"the F-35 is NOT a dogfighter...the F-35 is NOT a dogfighter..."

 

[Capt. Vick]

For the money it should.

The problem with "Beyond Visual Range" is the fact that it can be compromised by politically enforced "Rules of Engagement".

 

[GrauGeist]

For the money it should.

The problem with "Beyond Visual Range" is the fact that it can be compromised by politically enforced "Rules of Engagement".

If such a politically-embroiled conflict arises (like another Vietnam), round up all the politicians, hand them baseball bats and lock them all in a room until they're done.

 

[GregP]

Joe I was comparing the F-35 to the F-22 from a service standpoinf, not a mission standpoint. All planes have issues, many times similar issues, regardless of type. The F-22 is the type in sertvice closest to the F-35, technology-wise, so it should experience similar system problems., if there aer any. The pie chart for mission scrub faults should be similar. It would be good to know the MTBF for the current fleet, but that isn't likely to be public information.

And if your rommmate designed the electrical system, ask him if he's ever looked at the Moog actuator electrical performance environment. That is about all I will say unless you want to PM about it.

Everything with the F-35 was not all golden in 2011 but I don't think it is all bad, either. Most issues could have been addressed, but it's hard to address them if you are not aware of them. Looking at any and all maintenance items that cause a mission scrub statistically should point to any real problems. If something caused a no go, what exactly was the cause?

I spent many years looking at Quality and Test issues as an engineer, and I'm don't single out systems without some valid reason to do so. Again, if the issues have been addfressed, then they are off the table as problems. In my case, the issues were with systems for which we were a subcontractor to the prime contractor, Moog. We knew what the issues were, but we also were NOT going to spend a lot of money trying to fix things that Prime designed without getting reimbursed, and fixing them was not in the contract terms. The Prime wasn't interested in fixing things on their own buck, either, despite being the prime. The real issue was that I'm unsure Lockheed-Martin was ever apprised of the root problem and, if not, they would have no idea it needed to be addressed going forward. But if the problem resulted in failures, they SHOULD show up if they are being carefully tracked and looked into. That's one of the challenges of quality and test, finding root causes for problems and addressing them ... and it's NOT an F-35 thing, it's part of a good quality system for any military product. All mission scrubs need to have a root cause assigned. Looking at them SHOULD point directly to the problems, assuming the root cause is correct.

If you worked for LM, did you know Mike Kirchoff from Denver? He is a Mechanical Engineer and I worked with him when I was test manager at Unidynamics / Phoenix before they got sold off to Pacific Scientific.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Joe I was comparing the F-35 to the F-22 from a service standpoinf, not a mission standpoint. All planes have issues, many times similar issues, regardless of type. The F-22 is the type in sertvice closest to the F-35, technology-wise, so it should experience similar system problems., if there aer any. The pie chart for mission scrub faults should be similar. It would be good to know the MTBF for the current fleet, but that isn't likely to be public information.

If you you want to compare both aircraft from a service standpoint, you have a single mission, single service aircraft with the F-22. The navy didn't even want to look at the F-22 although LMCO tried to market a navalized version.

As far as mission pie charts for scrub missions - are you talking operational FMC rates? You can't compare that until you have active squadron history. Current FMC rates for the F-22 are out there - around 65 -70%. The target may be 75% and induced by the airforce. As I mentioned earlier the USMC F-35Bs indicated a 90% mission FMC rate on their pre operation deployment, this based on a report from the media where they tried to bash the aircraft about 10 lost sorties but mentioned the 120 sorties frown with no issues. An internet search may still pull up this article

And if your rommmate designed the electrical system, ask him if he's ever looked at the Moog actuator electrical performance environment. That is about all I will say unless you want to PM about it.

I remember him talking about Moog and even visiting their facility (I think outside of Buffalo NY)

Everything with the F-35 was not all golden in 2011 but I don't think it is all bad, either. Most issues could have been addressed, but it's hard to address them if you are not aware of them. Looking at any and all maintenance items that cause a mission scrub statistically should point to any real problems. If something caused a no go, what exactly was the cause?

These "issues were/ are typical for any aircraft under development. There were many things that could have been done differently but the biggest isses is you don't try to put a budget on a cost plus program and then go public with it. All the so called cost over runs HAD to be approved by the government!!!

I spent many years looking at Quality and Test issues as an engineer, and I'm don't single out systems without some valid reason to do so. Again, if the issues have been addfressed, then they are off the table as problems. In my case, the issues were with systems for which we were a subcontractor to the prime contractor, Moog. We knew what the issues were, but we also were NOT going to spend a lot of money trying to fix things that Prime designed without getting reimbursed, and fixing them was not in the contract terms. The Prime wasn't interested in fixing things on their own buck, either, despite being the prime. The real issue was that I'm unsure Lockheed-Martin was ever apprised of the root problem and, if not, they would have no idea it needed to be addressed going forward. But if the problem resulted in failures, they SHOULD show up if they are being carefully tracked and looked into. That's one of the challenges of quality and test, finding root causes for problems and addressing them ... and it's NOT an F-35 thing, it's part of a good quality system for any military product. All mission scrubs need to have a root cause assigned. Looking at them SHOULD point directly to the problems, assuming the root cause is correct.

This year I'll have 37 years in the business, 34 in QA, I feel the pain.

If you worked for LM, did you know Mike Kirchoff from Denver? He is a Mechanical Engineer and I worked with him when I was test manager at Unidynamics / Phoenix before they got sold off to Pacific Scientific.

His name sounds familiar but all my connections are out of Palmdale/ EDW

 

[buffnut453]

The problem with "Beyond Visual Range" is the fact that it can be compromised by politically enforced "Rules of Engagement".

And the problem with visual engagements is that misidentification will still occur....again, the Blackhawk shootdowns over Northern Iraq in 1994. To restate, radar technology and system-of-platforms integration has come on leaps and bounds since those days. I cannot envisage any conflict where air-to-air BVR engagements was prohibited for political reasons.

 

[Capt. Vick]

They were given the all clear by the AWACs and didn't bother with visual ID. I think they roasted the AWACs tech over the coals.

 

[buffnut453]

I came home from Op Northern Watch just before this happened. I knew 3 of the pax (1 USAF, 1 RAF, 1 Brit Army) onboard the Helos...needless to say, I'm a bit miffed (that'll be British understatement) about what happened there.

 

[Juha]

Given the improvements in operational data sharing (eg between AWACS and fighters as well as fighter-to-fighter) and massive leaps in radar technology since the LBJ era, coupled with the flaws inherent in a visual engagement (the Blackhawk shootdowns over Northern Iraq anyone?), I think the likelihood of ROE limiting engagements to the visual domain as being highly unlikely.

Yes, but during the Vietnam War the question wasn't only technical but also political, which is clearly seen in the order not to attack SAM sites under construction.

 

[Juha]

And the problem with visual engagements is that misidentification will still occur....again, the Blackhawk shootdowns over Northern Iraq in 1994. To restate, radar technology and system-of-platforms integration has come on leaps and bounds since those days. I cannot envisage any conflict where air-to-air BVR engagements was prohibited for political reasons.

Simply a president who like LBJ is ready to go at any lenghts to avoid killing Russians.

 

[buffnut453]

Simply a president who like LBJ is ready to go at any lenghts to avoid killing Russians.

Sorry...spurious argument. If the situation is so tense that our fighters are likely to get engaged in a close-up knife fight with an adversary, why try to avoid shooting down the very enemy aircraft that are likely to attack ours? This isn't the Cold War (although it's getting distinctly chilly in Eastern Europe), we don't have conventional military proxies for an ideological struggle, and technology is far more able to identify an enemy aircraft without visual ID.