Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
More F-35 Problems  
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3479 posts, RR: 27
Posted (3 years 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 7715 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...op-10-list-of-f-35b-flaws-and.html

interesting article concerning 10 flaws and their interim and final fixes... except they don't seem to have a handle on either the problems or the scope... and this in addition to the software delays noted in a separate thread.

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1540 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7429 times:

It just gets better with time...I found this flaw in particular to be remarkable:


"The Problem: At transonic speeds -- generally between 0.95M and 1.05M -- air flow for any supersonic fighter starts getting "squirrelly", as pilots call it. In this regime, air can be flowing over one wing or parts of one wing at supersonic speed, while moving subsonically on the other wing. This is especially true when the fighter is maneuvering aggressively. In such disruptions, one wing has a tendency to "roll-off", a movement not quite as severe as the "wing drop" problem experienced by the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and still on the list of concerns for the F-35C carrier variant. The F-35B has experienced wing roll-off in flight tests, which Lockheed says was expected.

The Solution: The F-35 is a fly-by-wire aircraft, so the plan is to counter the wing roll-off with a software change that sharpens the responses by the flight controls when such events occur. This is not expected to solve the problem completely, but it needs to be better. "You're never going to be perfect in that regime, but it needs to be acceptable," Lockheed says. "


You can't satisfactorily fix wing aerodynamics with FBW in a high-performance fighter for *all* flight regimes.

This smells of wing redesign tweaks...and associated cost...

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6893 times:

Quoting faro (Reply 1):
You can't satisfactorily fix wing aerodynamics with FBW in a high-performance fighter for *all* flight regimes.

And apparently they don't need to, since the issue appears only under certain specific circumstances which may be addressable without too much effort.

And the more authority and agility the FBW-controlled surfaces have, the more issues you should in fact be able to fix via software.


User currently offlineseachaz From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 220 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6409 times:

#3 Auxiliary Air Inlet doors - Anyone else think all the doors on this plan were a bad idea from the start? How are these parts going to survive the rigors of combat if they can't even meet their designed aerodynamic loads? Just seems like an overcomplicated series of 'transforming' has to take place to go from horizontal to vertical flight on this bird - and a large Achilles heel. Maybe for a civilian aircraft that won't be getting shot at this would be okay.

User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6027 times:

The one that caught my eye was number four.

4. Parts reliability

The Problem: The F-35B's parts reliability is poor, even for a program at this stage of development. Complaints have been hears about everything from key components of the propulsion system to the rudder pedals.

The Solution: In the short term, Lockheed is simply ordering more parts stockpile. As this tends to increase costs without addressing the root problem, Lockheed also has a long-term plan. In the latest restructuring unveiled in January, Lockheed and it's key suppliers will receive new contracts to make investments to improve reliability of the thousands of parts and components.

Even if they fix all the other problems if they don't get a handle on the parts reliability all they are going ot have is a very expensive hangar queen.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5420 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5909 times:

The whole premise of the F-35 was that it was going to be a relatively inexpensive 5th gen fighter/bomber. That has long gone out the window. It has become a hangar queen while still being years from entering service and is going to be at least as expensive as other planes which are proving themselves now.

It''s turning out to be too little, too expensive and too late. I will not be in the least surprised if orders start getting canceled.

Pull the plug on this turkey...or at the very least, euthanize the resource sucking B model.

The Gripen NG is looking like a sweeter deal every day. I think Canada would be way better off teaming up with the Swedes and developing a semi home grown military aerospace program than continuing to suffer through the F-35 soap opera.

Stick a fork in the damned thing already...



What the...?
User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 778 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5837 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 5):
The Gripen NG is looking like a sweeter deal every day. I think Canada would be way better off teaming up with the Swedes and developing a semi home grown military aerospace program than continuing to suffer through the F-35 soap opera.


Now,that would have been very very interesting  



It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5781 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 5):
The Gripen NG is looking like a sweeter deal every day.

The Gripen NG is indeed a very interesting option, which was discussed in germany some month ago as well as a long-term Tornado replacement to supplement the Typhoon.

Very impressive how a small country like sweden is able to produce their own fighter again and again to replace the older one:


1.Draken
2.Viggen
3.Gripen
4.Gripen NG


 


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5693 times:

But the foolish US Marines have banked their entire future on the F-35B, we can't cancel it!

And then of course the US Navy would be hit with a whole new class of aircraft carriers that can only carry helicopters.

USS America LHA-6: Where's the amphibious assault?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_%28LHA-6%29


User currently offlinegphoto From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 829 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5680 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Anyone for building more Harrier II's ? Maybe reworking a few parts with lighter materials to improve performance a little. I know it's not a cutting edge design, but is it good enough? If the A-10 and B-52 among others have shown that a good design can keep on giving, even when very old, why not the Harrier concept?

What do you think of the pro's and con's? I know the Harrier has it's drawbacks, but it is a proven design and there is good experience of how to deal with the negatives already. I'm not suggesting this is actually done , just interested to see what you all think in light of further problems with F-35B. Should it pushed on with until the problems are solved or is it time to cut the losses and run? After all, there is not a lot of money in the Western kitty at the moment.

Very interested to hear thoughts from all sides.

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offlinedk1967 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5536 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8):
USS America LHA-6: Where's the amphibious assault?

Ospreys.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Militar...rescued-a-downed-US-pilot-in-Libya


User currently onlineoly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6697 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5534 times:

Quoting gphoto (Reply 9):

I think the problem with military aerospace, like with any commercial concern, is that you have to keep creating new stuff to keep the design and development staff (& sales teams?) in a job. It's the hamster wheel that has to keep spinning.

The downside is that the next generation has to be a major advance on what went before otherwise you just tweak what's already there.

More generally, the problem (from a US standpoint, at least, since they're one of the primary movers for the F-35) is that since the collapse of the USSR... who is the enemy? Or who is the enemy going to be that requires such advanced weaponry to be developed? Russia? China? Europe? What threat does this enemy pose, & why? Religion/philosophy? Resources?

Or is it just a matter of developing the most advanced weaponry?

edit

Which brought this to mind...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziZHoCaZ1Fs

[Edited 2011-04-06 09:11:34]


wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5353 times:

Quoting dk1967 (Reply 10):
Ospreys.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Militar...Libya

Aircraft make for an aircraft carrier, not an amphibious assault ship, that requires a well deck with the ability to land ground vehicles ashore.


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7951 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5330 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 7):
which was discussed in germany some month ago as well as a long-term Tornado replacement to supplement the Typhoon

Huh? Must have missed that.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5152 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8):
But the foolish US Marines have banked their entire future on the F-35B, we can't cancel it!

And then of course the US Navy would be hit with a whole new class of aircraft carriers that can only carry helicopters.

I don't have a problem with it considering most of the problems listed are related to the F-35B. The DOD should have cut their loses and cancelled the VSTOL version instead of putting it on "probation". Then you tell USMC they have the choice between the F-35C or the F-18E/F.


User currently offlinearniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4988 times:

Just using this thread to seek clarification.
Has the following (date March 4) , rather important, issue been resolved already, it was supposed to be one of the biggest advantages the JSF was supposed to have over its contempories and seems like the crucial center part of its very futuristic integrated sensor package ???
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ense&id=news/asd/2011/03/04/02.xml

Quoting from the article:
Lockheed Martin, prime contractor for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, has begun looking for an alternative helmet system for the stealthy aircraft, as problems with the current Vision Systems International helmet continue to plague the program.

Lockheed issued a March 1 draft specification for proposals on an alternate helmet-mounted display system that makes use of commercial, off-the-shelf night-vision goggles, according to John Kent, a Lockheed spokesman. A final request for proposals is expected by the end of the month, and a selection will be made by the end of June. Candidates include BAE Systems, Gentex and VSI, Kent says.



[edit post]
User currently offlinegphoto From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 829 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4911 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Arniepie,

Looks like someone has been playing too much Halo, that pilot looks too much like Master Chief  

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4899 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13):
Huh? Must have missed that.

Not publically...

It was discussed with the german forces.
Another option will be UAVs to replace the tornado.


User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1540 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4895 times:

Quoting gphoto (Reply 16):
Looks like someone has been playing too much Halo, that pilot looks too much like Master Chief

With evolution, good chance this is what all humans will look like in a million years' time...

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlinearniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4733 times:

Just to keep this thread up to date;

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...s%2C-performance-and-progress.html

Quoting from the article:
Joint Strike Fighter: Restructuring Places Program on Firmer Footing, but Progress Still Lags



After more than 9 years in development and 4 in production, the JSF program has not fully demonstrated that the aircraft design is stable ,the GAO says in its latest report. (LM photo)
DOD continues to substantially restructure the JSF program, taking positive actions that should lead to more achievable and predictable outcomes. Restructuring has consequences—higher up-front development costs, fewer aircraft in the near term, training delays, and extended times for testing and delivering capabilities to warfighters.

Total development funding is now $56.4 billion to complete in 2018, a 26 percent increase in cost and a 5-year slip in schedule compared to the current baseline. DOD also reduced procurement quantities by 246 aircraft through 2016, but has not calculated the net effects of restructuring on total procurement costs nor approved a new baseline.

Affordability for the U.S. and partners is challenged by a near doubling in average unit prices since program start and higher estimated life-cycle costs. Going forward, the JSF requires unprecedented funding levels in a period of more austere defense budgets.

After more than 9 years in development and 4 in production, the JSF program has not fully demonstrated that the aircraft design is stable, manufacturing processes are mature, and the system is reliable. Engineering drawings are still being released to the manufacturing floor and design changes continue at higher rates than desired. More changes are expected as testing accelerates. Test and production aircraft cost more and are taking longer to deliver than expected. Manufacturers are improving operations and implemented 8 of 20 recommendations from an expert panel, but have not yet demonstrated a capacity to efficiently produce at higher production rates. Substantial improvements in factory throughput and the global supply chain are needed.

Development testing is still early in demonstrating that aircraft will work as intended and meet warfighter requirements. Only about 4 percent of JSF capabilities have been completely verified by flight tests, lab results, or both. Only 3 of the extensive network of 32 ground test labs and simulation models are fully accredited to ensure the fidelity of results. Software development—essential for achieving about 80 percent of the JSF functionality—is significantly behind schedule as it enters its most challenging phase.


and....

in 2016 the US Air Force will buy 70 F-35As for $8.5 billion, for an average price of $121.4 million for each aircraft. Note that FY2016 will be the tenth year of JSF production.
That same year the US Navy will buy 20 F-35Cs for $2.9 billion, or $145 million per aircraft, while the Marine Corps plans to buy 18 F-35Bs (assuming this variant survives) for $2.9 billion, or $161 million per aircraft.
These figures are significantly higher than the $60-70 million unit prices quoted by Lockheed Martin to foreign customers.




[edit post]
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3479 posts, RR: 27
Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4722 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

on the other side, here's a story that the ejection system works after a couple failures... well at least the seat leaves the plane . when triggered at 600 MPH... of course they don't show where it went or the condition or the dummy when recovered..
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...ideo-yes-the-f-35-ejection-se.html


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic More F-35 Problems
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
More Problems For The F-35? posted Thu Nov 12 2009 07:06:19 by 747classic
Report: A400M - More Problems posted Sat Jan 5 2008 08:53:14 by Mham001
F-35 Software To Be At Least 4 Years Late posted Tue Mar 15 2011 10:18:03 by kanban
Canada F-35 Order Facing Scrutiny posted Thu Mar 10 2011 22:18:37 by ac788
How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...? posted Wed Nov 17 2010 15:56:14 by JoeCanuck
UAE Seeks 30 More AH-64s To Double Fleet posted Mon Nov 8 2010 11:24:47 by Lumberton
F-35 Detects Missile Launch 1200kms Away posted Thu Sep 9 2010 23:27:42 by Shmertspionem
Anybody Knows More About That Black Hawk? posted Fri Aug 6 2010 04:03:59 by lufthansi
Canada Commits To F-35 posted Fri Jul 16 2010 02:14:59 by connies4ever
Presidential Visit To CRW. 757, DC9, 737, And More posted Mon Jul 5 2010 12:02:07 by MainRunway
More Problems For The F-35? posted Thu Nov 12 2009 07:06:19 by 747classic
More Grief For The F-35... posted Thu Sep 1 2011 05:01:23 by JoeCanuck
More Bad F-35 News Range Minimum Not Met posted Fri May 13 2011 17:02:50 by kanban
Report: A400M - More Problems posted Sat Jan 5 2008 08:53:14 by Mham001
F-35 Structural Cracking Still Being Resolved posted Tue Sep 6 2011 11:20:26 by kanban
V-22 More Common Now? posted Sun Aug 14 2011 18:27:06 by rampart
Dewline: Bipartisan Conspiracy Against F-35 & V-22 posted Tue Aug 9 2011 10:43:50 by oykie
F-35 Tests Suspended Over System Failure posted Wed Aug 3 2011 17:23:19 by kanban
LM May Offer F-35 To India On Fighter Deal posted Mon Jun 20 2011 13:53:14 by comorin

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format