some F35 info

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hi Joe,

There's nothing in that last quote of yours that contradicts what I said. And when the solicitation is sent out and a reply is formulated or in the process of being formulated IS when the design begins ... 1992, just like I posted.

Of course I can compare an F-35 to a Bf 109 ... they're both fighters and the knowledge to make the airframes fly is about equal, considering we have computers for what they used to use slide rules for. It's all the added crap that stretches things out, not the basic airframe. You know that.

I am WELL aware of government bungling in contracts having been engaged in trying to thwart it for more than 16 years. I finally had a handle on it when I asked the government people for a change order for every "minor" change. After that, they started handing us real change orders instead of pecking away at changes ... at least we got paid for that. We also declined any change that didn't include a schedule adjustment to account for the change after being hurt several times.

I hate to say it but if I had a small company I'd decline government work. It isn't worth the hassle that accompanies the work. If we ever do another thing like this and I am retired at that time, I may join the vocal opposition unless it can be shown to be cost effective. To me, the F-35 never did and still doesn't seem cost effective. It may well perform when deployed, and at least that's something, but I have never been and still am not a supporter. If it winds up meeting the hype, I might be pursuaded to defect to your side ... but that will have to happen first. I hope it does meet the hype rather than the alternative.

You aren't the only one who has worked on it. I did too.

We made all F-35 actuators (gear, ailerons, elevators, rudder, gear doors, tailpipe pivot for the STOVL and other linear actuation requirements), the lift fan clutch assembly, brakes, the assembly that pivots the tailpipe for hover, and a few more pieces. I KNOW they were well made, but some of the designs were forced on us ... and there are still some electronic "stupid things" in those designs.
 
Last edited:
GregP said:
Hi Joe,

There's nothing in that last quote of yours that contradicts what I said. And when the solicitation is sent out and a reply is formulated or in the process of being formulated IS when the design begins ... 1992, just like I posted.
Click to expand...
But that's NOT when the first solicitations went out for a FIGHTER. It was a proof of concept aircraft that led into the X-32 and X-35. The gestation time was dictated by the government, NOT the contractor and that's one of the reasons why it's been 23 years.

Agree and disagree - the conception, design and production of a WW2 fighter compared to a fighter of today is like comparing cave paintings to CAD CAM models - yes "the added crap that stretches things out" is quite true especially when you have a customer who continually changes it's mind, triple tests the aircraft and then allows an R&D budget to be over run.
the added crap that stretches things out
And that's exactly what happened to LMCO in most cases, but sometimes they tried to retain schedule and got stung by it. It's like having a friend asking you to help him move then he starts yelling at you for not working fast enough.
GregP said:
The government does that all the time and I see it all the time.
the added crap that stretches things out
Click to expand...

I'm still a government contractor and I see it today
GregP said:
I hate to say it but if I had a small company I'd decline government work. It isn't worth the hassle that accompanies the work.
Click to expand...
It could be worth wild for something simple that yielded a good profit margin. I worked with a machine shop who made part of the toilet system for ships, that were a sole source and it was very profitable for them.
GregP said:
the added crap that stretches things out
Click to expand...
And that's 3/4 of the problem with the F-35 and many other fighters that come before it, unfortunately in this day and age any large defense system is highly scrutinized by a very ignorant and anti-military media and further enflamed by a non-aviation educated general public.
I believe the F-35 will be a winner, no hiding that and would also join the effort to make programs like this more cost effective, but again the REAL MIC that lives inside the walls of places like the pentagon and at Wright Patterson AFB need to be harnessed and held accountable for their actions as well as the contractor.
GregP said:
You aren't the only one who has worked on it. I did too.
Click to expand...
Greg, you were a subcontractor, one of many.
As a sub WITHOUT design authority it's basically not your place to consider what's stupid and what isn't. I was a QA Rep assigned to Parker at both Costa Mesa and Irvine, and both facilities were class acts, but they provided a service to a prime contractor. I had some other subcontractos complain about "things" that although were quite legitimate to them, worked exactly how we wanted it. For a host of reasons we would ignore their concerns as they did not have a need to know
 
Last edited:
within that block, I also see the sea trials for the F-35C are, or already have completed this month (October). Im stuck on just how smooth the aircraft in all manner of deck operations. Its a very classy a/c
 
Hi Joe,

All I can say about being a subcontractor is WE found the problems and knew how to fix them. The PRIME declined to fix them unless they were paid to do it. The thing is, in my mind, they WERE paid to design it and made errors that SHOULD have been theirs to fix in the first place. So we had to manufacture things that weren't going to meet spec, and had to do it just because they were to the prime's drawing and part number.

The prime was Moog.
 

Greg,

That's the trial and tribulations of being a subcontractor. In the end if your component works safely and you're paid for your services that's what matters. I worked for a sub after my days at Lockheed and saw this from the other side of the fence. When they were still around, McDonnell Douglas Long Beach was the worse and seemed to blame us for discovering an issue with their design.
 
Here's a recent article. Read the part about the F-35.

How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs

Sort of justifies my own thoughts ... very admirably. And nobody in here can accuse the author of being unqualified to comment on it from a position of knowledge.

I have no opinion on whether or not the F-35 can turn and burn since I DON'T know but, if it can't ... then Thanksgiving is a good holliday for it since we eat a LOT of turkey at that time. The answer SHOULD be EASY. Fly it and report the facts. If it can't turn and burn when empty, scrap it.

Or mortgage our grandchildren for a loser. Of course, that asssumes it can't perform ... but maybe it CAN. Do a real ... PUBLIC test and report the facts.

Maybe we're all fighting over nothing. The real objective is the truth about the aircraft ... NOT from the manufacturer's PR people. Electrronic superiority doesn't guarantee real-world survivability. All it means is you can fool 'em for awhile ... until you can't.

Please no ONE line trite excuses. Make your case.
 
Last edited:

Easily spoken from an individual who is retired and not in the game anymore.

Here's the perspective from an active duty pilot who actually flew the aircraft;

Pilot reaction to flying the F-35B | Ares

My case - if you're fighting VR with an F-35 you've pissed away 85 million dollars worth of airplane - one line statement, if I have to explain why then you don't know anything about modern combat aircraft. Look at the test report that's causing all this BS - the F-35 flew VR, no sensors, no radar, all the advantage to the F-16, and it really wasn't a true dogfighting test! Someone posted for about it several pages back.

Again - this aircraft WAS NOT designed to be a dedicated air-to-air fighter. The word "STRIKE" was used in copious amounts through out it's development.
 
Last edited:
".....See, that's where you're wrong, this is a classy aircraft, carrier based aircraft...."

Admit it, Lucky, you're a romantic ...

Wikipedia: "... The Crusader was not an easy aircraft to fly, and was often unforgiving in carrier landings, where it suffered from yaw instability, and the poorly designed, castoring nose undercarriage made steering on the deck problematic. It earned a reputation as an "ensign killer" during its early service introduction.[10] The nozzle and air intake were so low when the aircraft was on the ground or the flight deck that the crews called the aircraft "the Gator". Not surprisingly, the Crusader's mishap rate was relatively high compared to its contemporaries, the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk and the F-4 Phantom II. However, the aircraft did possess some amazing capabilities, as proved when several Crusader pilots took off with the wings folded. One of these episodes took place on 23 August 1960; a Crusader with the wings folded took off from Napoli Capodichino in full afterburner, climbed to 5,000 ft (1,500 m) and then returned to land successfully. The pilot, absent minded but evidently a good "stick man," complained that the control forces were higher than normal. The Crusader was capable of flying in this state, though the pilot would be required to reduce aircraft weight by ejecting stores and fuel prior to landing.[3] In all, 1,261 Crusaders were built. By the time it was withdrawn from the fleet, 1,106 had been involved in mishaps.[11] Only a handful of them were lost to enemy fire in Vietnam.[11]
 

Having talked and worked with several people involved in the early days of the program I am not buying either explanation of the designation, although I have heard both. I absolutely have no firsthand knowledge of the designation selection, but what follows fits with everything I have heard.

First the miss-printed Dash 1. There were a very limited number of manuals printed, particularly early on, and it would not have been millions of dollars to reprint, a few tens of thousands max. Costs which any self-respecting CORE would have made the contractor eat if the contractor operated without authority. Also, the contractor does not make the military designation of an aircraft, they are told what it will be called, although naturally they may have an internal or early designation they use before the aircraft receives its "official" ID. And of course the contractor may have a favorite name / designation they champion and try to make "official". They would not have printed a manual, and the manual would not have made it through both the contractor and military vetting process, with an unauthorized designation on the cover.

Next the pilot egos's. While the project was black, before the project was an acknowledged project, acknowledgement that did not occur until after the aircraft was in operational service, prospective pilots did not know what aircraft they would be involved with, the A-7 enhancement cover story extended to prospective pilots also. Before being read in to the project, something that did not happen until after they were selected for the project, they were told that the aircraft they would be involved with was a modified / enhanced A-7 so the "F" designation did not matter. After the project was acknowledged the designation of the aircraft would not have mattered, many of the prospective pilots of the correct mind set and abilities would have given their eye teeth to fly the cutting edge, super sexy, space age, aircraft.

I had always heard the designation of the F-117 came from three factors in combination, politics, location, and OPSEC. While possibly sound this is speculation that might be impossible to support with documentation.

Politically the Air Force of the day was not buying new attack aircraft. The perceived future role of the Air Force was Fighters and Bombers, with the Navy and Marines working Fighters and Attack, and so Air Force combat aircraft would receive either F or B designations, or possibly F/B. The Air Force already had two major Bomber projects underway, the ATB (what became the B-2) and the initially problematic, expensive, somewhat embarrassing B-1. Remember that even "black" projects require funding, and Congress would be more likely to fund a "fighter" than another expensive bomber. So when TAC pursued funding for Senior Trend it was not as a bomber.

According to Col Peck's book the location for the first base of operations for the aircraft was selected before the first airframe flew, before the first Dash One was printed, and while the project was still black. The airfield at Tonapah Test Range was expanded specifically to support the F-117, after initial testing at Groom Lake but before the aircraft was operational. A small town was constructed on base near the airfield so that personnel would not mix with locals as much. And this leads to the OPSEC portion.

The aircraft already flying in and around the TTR airfield were the aircraft of Constant Peg and the 4477th. These foreign aircraft had been given the designations of F-110, F-113, F-114, etc, to use on the radio. It draws less attention in US airspace to say "F-113" on the radio than "MiG-23". A designation consistent with the designators already in use in the area would draw less attention. And while still a classified project the existence of the Constant Peg aircraft was already publicly known by the time the first F-117 flew. So even if folks did not know specifically what an F-113 was, they knew in a general way what it was, and the appearance of a "new" one-teen designation, if it ever became known, would point towards Foreign Material Exploitation, vs towards a "new" aircraft for the Air Force, since the new aircraft designation system would not draw from such numbers.

Many folks in and around the industry knew a stealth fighter was on the way or here already, but folks not in the program expected the aircraft to receive a teen designation, with F-19 being the one most suspected. I would have to say the misdirection in designation worked well.

T!
 

All sounds good but I'll tell you I was there, saw the first two built. Both stories were widely spoken about but in my world the aircraft was just know as "the article".

BTW when a military is flown (at least in the white world) a call sign is given for the mission (Congo 64 for example). I would think a spoken word would be used on the radio along with a number to designate the aircraft by flight plan, not by type. I've flown many times on military aircraft and this was the norm - Biff could chime in on this as he's "been there, done that".
 

Yeah, Reach XX, Coso YYY, Dagger ZZ, etc are the norm, however there are still times when aircraft type gets sent, for various reasons. Radio hobbyist have been listening to the Nellis ranges for many years, and all of the aircraft type designations were heard at one time or another, including the F-117 before it was acknowledged.

T!
 
Hmmm - and they're eavesdropping on them with VHF?
 
So the only active duty or former active duty pilots who KNOW what they're talking about are the ones who support the F-35?

We'll have to disagree on that one.

The ROE have historically been heavily slanted toward political safety ... not staying within a supporting aircraft's design parameters. If the F-35 has to fly missions with the SAME ROE, it definitely WILL be within VR a LOT, and I now believe that will not be a good thing.

No amount of whitewash will make me believe otherwise unless and until it is proven so in combat. Perhaps then we will all find out. We certainly will NOT find out in war games with restrictive politically-motivated ROE.

Since the F-35's operational time is soon to be upon us, I'd say we'll probably find out soon enough, assuming the progression of stupid acts in the world continues unabated, and I can se no reason why it won't at this time.
 
Last edited:
I might point out that even two days ago, an F-18 (this also points back to the twin-engine conversation earlier) went down in England. Of note, is the fact that the F-18 has a remarkable reliability record...and yet, here were are, one F-18 down and one pilot has perished

So nothing is perfect, but from what I have seen and heard, I feel that the F-35 will be a winner.
 
I was not arguing the single versus twin thing ... I was referecing the link I posted earlier where an F-16 combat pilot says the F-35 is a big mistake.

I realize Joe worked on it. I did , too. We were both subcontactor (actuators for the ailerons) and prime (elevator actuators, nozzle flex mechanism, brakes, and other items)) and I am fully aware he supports it ... maybe 110%.

I just don't agree and, much more importantly, can't find a real reason to do so. It is not disrespect for Joe ... far from it; it is a simple difference of opinion. Doesn't mean we won't eventually have a beer together, it means we don't see the F-35 in the same light at this time.

I may come around and may not depending on the experience with it. I have low expectations and would be happy to be pleasantly surprised. We'll see, and it won't probably be in the next several days or weeks. It will be when we get into a fight with it, considering the history of our "peacetime hostile encounters," in which we have done quite well over the lifetime of the F-15 and F-16.

If we continue to do so, maybe the F-35 will be OK. If it fails, especially early on ... maybe several times, the proponents won't exactly have much of a leg to stand on. Only time will tell and, as I have stated numerous times, seemingly without apparent effect (maybe that will change?) ... I hope it does well.
 
Last edited:
No airplane is perfect and even 8-engine aircraft crash. Think B-52. Sometimes circumstance overcomes multiple engines. When that hapens, it USUALLY but not always is NOT the rest of the engines that cause the crash.

Twins ARE safer than singles when one engine fails and the other one doesn't. A twin can shut down one engine and fly home on the other one. A single cannot do that under ANY circumstances other than being directly over the airport.

In other circumstances it isn't quite so simple, and the systems on a single may be more or less reliable than those on a twin. I've seen it go both ways. The Oxygen system, for instance, may or may be the better on a single or a twin. In recent times, I'd say single turbines are as reliable in the engine department as twins. That doesn't make them any better or worse than singles in other systems areas.

But if you have ... say ... two alternators on a twin, one on each engine, and one engine fails ... then the single is not as reliable as the twin because even if he has two alternators ... if one engine fails, he goes down and loses electrical power other than battery.

I'd rather be in a piston twin than a piston single most times, but if in a turbine aircraft, I'd rather be in the one with the better systems setup for redundancy. That's usually the twin but not always, particularly in military aircraft. They are designed for combat survial in the face of multiple system failures.

For an example, look at the AD Skyraider, firmly rooted in WWII design. It could take a LOT of damage and still attack and still get home in Viet Nam. The Muitsubishi G4M Betty was called the flying lighter and it wasn't for nothing. Give me a Skyraider anytime.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Gulf of Sidra 1981 Info wanted
Replies
7
Views
804
Barrett
B
F
Allison J33 -A-24 Info
Replies
1
Views
843
mjfur
M
SR-72 Darkstar info
Replies
8
Views
753
SaparotRob
M
Some Interesting Vietnam Shots
Replies
5
Views
908
Gnomey
Experimental Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base. Some rare, unclassified footage
Replies
2
Views
556
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register