Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-35 Structural Cracking Still Being Resolved  
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3497 posts, RR: 27
Posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11348 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

According to http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...an-a-new-structural-crack-sug.html , one of the structural forgings is cracking at 1/10th the designed service life..

The bad news just keeps coming.. Even though they think they have a fix for the next production lot, replacing this forging will not be easy. Or we will have some very expensive museum show pieces.

97 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 930 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11307 times:

Quoting kanban (Thread starter):
Or we will have some very expensive museum show pieces.

This is a flight test program, the test aircraft are fully expected to be put through hell in the hunt for under performing parts and systems. All this story says is that the flight tests are succeeding in flushing out as many issues as possible to be fixed before EIS.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3497 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11287 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Yes it was caught during the flight/structural test part of the program.. However, the disparity between design and actual is substantial and, like the 787, they are grinding more and more copies with the discrepancy.

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 11167 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 2):
Yes it was caught during the flight/structural test part of the program.. However, the disparity between design and actual is substantial and, like the 787, they are grinding more and more copies with the discrepancy.

They actually knew about the cracking issue well before the flight test program started, but they decided to press on because they wanted real world data for analysis. This issue only affects the A and B models, not the C model as the C model has a different wing, and beefier structure for carrier landings.

The new modified forward root rib design will be incorporated into production planes from the beginning of Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 5 for both F-35A and B aircraft. A total of 64 F-35A and B's will need to be modified to fly for their full fatigue life. The modifications will be done during the Block 3 upgrade to reduce downtime, which is in any case a major scheduled overhaul period.

The Boeing 787 had a wing problem as did the Airbus A380; it's actually quite a common problem in aicraft testing. In fact if you are not running into problems when testing, it means that probably means you over designed and over built the airplane which is a bad thing in aviation. Inevitably the F-35 is going to have a few more problems show up in testing which of course is the reason why they test airplanes in the first place.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11111 times:

BREAKING NEWS! EXTREMELY COMPLICATED FIFTH GENERATION STEALTH FIGHTER JET NEEDS DESIGN TWEAKS AFTER NOT BEING PERFECT ON FIRST TRY! LOCKHEED HIRES TELEPATHS AND PSYCHICS TO COMBAT NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE FUTURE EFFECTIVELY.

IN OTHER NEWS, CITY BANS DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE BECAUSE IF INHALED IN QUANTITY, IT CAN CAUSE ASPHYXIA BY PREVENTING THE ABSORPTION OF O2 LEADING TO CEREBRAL HYPOXIA!


MORE AT 7!

[Edited 2011-09-06 22:32:05]

User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11087 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 4):

With the program being this many years late and over budget...nothing about the program is 'the first try' anymore. Since wings have been around as long as airplanes, one might assume that these 'psychics' perhaps should have stuck to structural engineering...or just pouring over the designs of some of the other hundreds of jet fighters to grasp a clue as to the strength of materials required for the proposed tasks.

Underdesign and overpromise...the miracle that is the F-35. Will it still be state of the art when it finally enters service? Remember back when wood was state of the art structural material...? Ah...those were the good old days.

I wonder if this metal stuff for structure in aircraft fad will ever catch on...



What the...?
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11043 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 5):
With the program being this many years late and over budget...nothing about the program is 'the first try' anymore. Since wings have been around as long as airplanes, one might assume that these 'psychics' perhaps should have stuck to structural engineering...or just pouring over the designs of some of the other hundreds of jet fighters to grasp a clue as to the strength of materials required for the proposed tasks.

You cannot just lift designs off older aircraft for newer aircraft. Everytime you design an aircraft, you have to essentially start fresh. Every new aircraft design in recent memory has had design issues that cropped up during testing, the non-exhaustive list includes the A380's destructive wing test failure, the Boeing 787's software issues, the F-22's oxygen generator issues, the F/A-18's vertical stabilizer cracking, the F-16's fuel-control valve issues, the F-4's intake issues... may I go on?

It's better that we find about these issues NOW during testing, rather than later. For example, on the F-22, 101 F-22's have defective titanium forgings in the rear fuselage, which could lead to premature structural failure. They only found out about this until after those birds were built. On the F/A-18, they discovered well after production commenced that there was fatigue cracking on the vertical stabilizers, which was traced to excessive loads placed on the twin tails by the vortices streaming from the large wing leading-edge extensions. They fixed that by installing a cast-aluminum fence on the LEX to modify the vortex pattern and alleviate the stress on the tailplane, plus structural stiffening of the vertical stabilizers.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11010 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 6):
You cannot just lift designs off older aircraft for newer aircraft. Everytime you design an aircraft, you have to essentially start fresh. Every new aircraft design in recent memory has had design issues that cropped up during testing, the non-exhaustive list includes the A380's destructive wing test failure, the Boeing 787's software issues, the F-22's oxygen generator issues, the F/A-18's vertical stabilizer cracking, the F-16's fuel-control valve issues, the F-4's intake issues... may I go on?

Sure you can when it's been done on every plane since the Wright brothers. What failed was basic structures, using known materials on an aircraft where the stresses were also known and they failed in one fifth the design time...so they made it to 20% of the design goals. That's not a percent or two like the 380 wing, or fatigue after decades of hard service like the F-18.

This is a major cockup...one fifth of the stated design goal? Even the most rabid and enthusiastic F-35 apologist should at least be embarrassed by this.

When was the last time an aircraft program failed by 80%?



What the...?
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10915 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 7):
Sure you can when it's been done on every plane since the Wright brothers. What failed was basic structures, using known materials on an aircraft where the stresses were also known and they failed in one fifth the design time...so they made it to 20% of the design goals. That's not a percent or two like the 380 wing, or fatigue after decades of hard service like the F-18.

No you can't. Each design is totally unique and different. The structural loads are different from aircraft to aircraft. You don't want to overbuild aircraft because if you did, the engineer did something wrong, and cut into payload and range to do so. You are obviously not a structural or aviation engineer to understand this.

And the F/A-18 vertical stabilizer cracking? It happened right after IOC, and dogged the initial batches of the F/A-18, leading to a grounding of the type in the 1980's until they could figure out what was going on.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10799 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 5):
With the program being this many years late and over budget...nothing about the program is 'the first try' anymore.

So exactly how many times have they reached the 1/10th fatigue life mark again? I would think this is probably one of the areas they shaved weight off of from the first batch of jets.

Better than finding say... defective stringers in say... F-15s 30 years after the fact.


User currently offlinewvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10695 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 7):
When was the last time an aircraft program failed by 80%?

Dont laugh I wouldn't be suprised if it doesnt go higher with this never ending money pit.


User currently offlinejollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 218 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10662 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 4):
IN OTHER NEWS, CITY BANS DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE BECAUSE IF INHALED IN QUANTITY, IT CAN CAUSE ASPHYXIA BY PREVENTING THE ABSORPTION OF O2 LEADING TO CEREBRAL HYPOXIA!

Choked laughing too hard... I'll have to absorb some dihydrogen monoxide myself to restore ventilation! I'll report back if I survive this controversial procedure...

 


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10450 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 8):

No you can't. Each design is totally unique and different. The structural loads are different from aircraft to aircraft. You don't want to overbuild aircraft because if you did, the engineer did something wrong, and cut into payload and range to do so. You are obviously not a structural or aviation engineer to understand this.

No I'm not...but thanks for assuming that only aviation structural engineers could possibly understand these concepts. It seems, though, that the aviation engineers assigned to the F-35 are also having some trouble with the concepts.

Let's just go over what they did know, shall we?

They knew the weight of the plane. They knew the characteristics of the materials. They knew the flight regimes and the contrary to your assertion, they actually do know the structural loads that would be imposed on the plane. The plane is specifically designed to withstand the maximum structural loads.

They knew all of this yet the components started cracking in one fifth the calculated time...ONE FIFTH. How is that not a failure?

Other planes failed so that makes it ok for the F-35 to fail? Talk about setting the bar low. They suck so we can suck too...great philosophy.

Sure...there have been other failures in other fighters...but these were designed 30 years ago...yet, it seems the folks doing the F-35 not only failed to achieve design goals by an amazingly large margin, (those amazing aircraft engineers again), using the absolutely most modern and highest tech available design and manufacturing techniques, they failed to learn from failures of the past.

Apparently pigs can fly...occasionally.



What the...?
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 10408 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 12):
They knew the weight of the plane. They knew the characteristics of the materials. They knew the flight regimes and the contrary to your assertion, they actually do know the structural loads that would be imposed on the plane. The plane is specifically designed to withstand the maximum structural loads.

The thing is that although you can make assumptions regarding load and structural strength, you can't be 100% certain. While today's technology and simulations can help engineers design structures, they are not perfect. Engineers have to walk a very fine line between sufficient structural strength and excessive weight. You don't overbuild aircraft beyond what is necessary because you cut into performance and capability. It is a very fine line to walk, and each instance is different.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3497 posts, RR: 27
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 10380 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Interesting, a post on the Flightglobal site indicates this was suposed to be a titanium bulkhead, but because of weight problems they substituted aluminium.. can anybody verify that assertion..

User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 930 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10314 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 12):

They knew the weight of the plane. They knew the characteristics of the materials. They knew the flight regimes and the contrary to your assertion, they actually do know the structural loads that would be imposed on the plane. The plane is specifically designed to withstand the maximum structural loads.

In addition to ThePointblank's comments, it is very different task to design for ultimate loads, and by all accounts they suceeded at that, than it is to design for fatigue degredation.

We do have fancy computational fluid dynamics to ascertain what aerodynamic loads go onto the aircraft in different areas. The answer you get is always flawed because the computational power to carry out the accuracy of calculations that we would like so we have to simplify the calculations either by idealising variables or lowering the resolution of the solution. The same goes for the computerised tools used to analyse structures once we know what loads go into them. These are also relatively new tools and at the forefront of R&D, there is much we would like to do but cannot as of now, and somehow confirming that everything will work exactly as we plan or expect is one of them. This is why we have thorough testing of aircraft before EIS.


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10307 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 8):
The structural loads are different from aircraft to aircraft. You don't want to overbuild aircraft because if you did, the engineer did something wrong, and cut into payload and range to do so. You are obviously not a structural or aviation engineer to understand this.

I am a structural engineer and if I missed my design target by 80% I'd be sacked. I know what you are saying about an over-design being as big a mistake as an under design, especially in Aviation but this shows that the model being used has some serious parameter errors.

Quoting kanban (Reply 14):
Interesting, a post on the Flightglobal site indicates this was suposed to be a titanium bulkhead, but because of weight problems they substituted aluminium.. can anybody verify that assertion..

If that is the case then its even worse. Titanium is all but fatigue proof for the design life of an airframe. Aluminium needs real attention to design in the fatigue case (think of the Comet). That would have been a big call by someone, Engineer or Project Manager?


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10261 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 16):
That would have been a big call by someone, Engineer or Project Manager?

Most likely someone that was replaced long ago in a shuffle. My guess is that this change was made as a stop gap measure to keep the program rolling and would be corrected at a later time.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 12):
Sure...there have been other failures in other fighters...but these were designed 30 years ago...yet, it seems the folks doing the F-35 not only failed to achieve design goals by an amazingly large margin, (those amazing aircraft engineers again), using the absolutely most modern and highest tech available design and manufacturing techniques, they failed to learn from failures of the past.

Sounds like you think this is the future we were told about 30 years ago. I still dont have my flying car  

You can plan, calculate, test, rinse and repeat the numbers, but you still have to test the real thing in real world conditions. That is what flight test programs are for... designs are just ideas, that might not always work out. Nature has a way of making the best formulated plans land on their head.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10122 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 17):

Yes, I understand the concepts and limitations of designing and why they are tested before entering service. What we are talking about here are knowns, not anything to do with the exotic stealth areas or nifty engine design, bleeding edge communication and avionics or state of the art fly by wire....this is aluminum in an aircraft structure...failing at one fifth of its design life.

I understand why the nifty new stuff causes delays, (not accept them), but aluminum has been used in aircraft primary structures for the better part of a century. It's fatigue properties are quite well understood by now...or should be. So not only did they replace the designed for materials, they improperly designed the materials they used to replace them.

Somebody or a bunch of people, dropped the ball huge with this one. At some point, excuses have to stop being made for this project and the people running it. Why people are still apologising for the goofs running this project is beyone me. When is enough, enough?

Aluminum bulkheads have been state of the art for quite some time and have been used in thousands of aircraft...if they can screw this up, what next?

If aluminum is so hard to design for, why aren't planes falling out of the skies like hail? If anything commercial airlines have even more interest in getting as close to the perfect strength to weight ratio than the military since airlines have to buy their own gas, and they sure as hell go through a lot more flight cycles.



What the...?
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10117 times:

Quoting GST (Reply 15):
We do have fancy computational fluid dynamics to ascertain what aerodynamic loads go onto the aircraft in different areas. The answer you get is always flawed because the computational power to carry out the accuracy of calculations that we would like so we have to simplify the calculations either by idealising variables or lowering the resolution of the solution. The same goes for the computerised tools used to analyse structures once we know what loads go into them. These are also relatively new tools and at the forefront of R&D, there is much we would like to do but cannot as of now, and somehow confirming that everything will work exactly as we plan or expect is one of them. This is why we have thorough testing of aircraft before EIS.

I'd respectfully disagree with those statements. I work in the CFD field (one dimensional Navier-Stokes equation set) and our answers are extremely close to what the lab tests show, and are used in licensing nuclear reactors -- so accuracy is kind of important. Same goes for load calculating tools. Don't forget the Shuttle was designed using software tools basically developed in the 60s, and they seemed to get those values right.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3497 posts, RR: 27
Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 10114 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting GST (Reply 15):
We do have fancy computational fluid dynamics to ascertain what aerodynamic loads go onto the aircraft in different areas. The answer you get is always flawed because the computational power to carry out the accuracy of calculations that we would like so we have to simplify the calculations either by idealising variables or lowering the resolution of the solution. The same goes for the computerised tools used to analyse structures once we know what loads go into them.


My first thought was here is someone still dealing with punch cards.. Then I realized that it's someone trying to learn. Boeing/LM/etc. have computing capability beyond most schools. They have access to NASA computing as well. They can factor in all the variables very accurately predict the results. The problem is sometimes there is an error in the input that nobody catches because the results look so good and are within the rough estimate. It happens. That's why they recheck and recheck.
Now if we could substatiate that someone did a one for one material swap using the same molds and dies, they probably will have a short career. This wasn't an computing power problem it was an input problem.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 10056 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 20):
The problem is sometimes there is an error in the input that nobody catches because the results look so good and are within the rough estimate. It happens. That's why they recheck and recheck.

That is exactly why I insist on an independent review of all input data for any given simulation: to eliminate as far as possible an input error. It's nice being the boss.  



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9916 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18):
Aluminum bulkheads have been state of the art for quite some time and have been used in thousands of aircraft...if they can screw this up, what next?

From what I read, this part was originally titanium. Someone fudged with the switch up, probably trying to save weight.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9865 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 22):
From what I read, this part was originally titanium. Someone fudged with the switch up, probably trying to save weight.

I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse. One cockup after another...does it really matter who actually screwed up at this point?



What the...?
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9850 times:

It just says at some point someone made the decision to swap the titanium for aluminum, probably fully knowing the aluminum would not hold up, but by doing so, helped remove the weight that was need to get the program moving. The test frames will be retired after testing is done, so were never needed to have a full life. It has been stated that Lockheed has know about this problem for quite a while, and in fact, the aluminum held up longer than expected.

What is really going on here is the public has just learned of this, and is something for the anti F-35 people to dump on.

Everyone will get the F-35, over budget and late, but they will still get it.


25 JoeCanuck : Sadly, you are probably right.
26 Dreadnought : I just wanted to point out that the P-51, arguably the greatest fighter of it's era, took 178 days from concept through design, construction and first
27 Oroka : Roll in stealth, ever increasing demands for lighter jets, greater range, super cruise, thrust vectoring, not to mention AESA, advanced inter-communic
28 redflyer : I think the F-20 was based on an existing design, the F-5, which would account for the relatively short development cycle time. Nonetheless, your poi
29 connies4ever : It only took 4 years, more or less, to develop the atomic bomb. It only took 2 years, more or less, to plan, develop and deliver the required equipme
30 Bennett123 : I think that suggesting that the F20 is a modified F5 is off the mark.
31 Dreadnought : We are talking about the Federal procurement program since the late 60s/70s. I guess the last fighter planes that were accepted into service that had
32 Oroka : While true, they were also developed during the cold war, there was an urgency there. The F-22 and F-35 are having a hard time being justified being
33 Post contains images Baroque : That is enough to raise me from my overwork and manga mousse induced torpor in Porto!! Most of the reason for gubmints not doing anything very splend
34 Bennett123 : There are those who suggest building more F22, rather than the F35. However, with the final F22 being built in 2012, this option will soon be gone.
35 JoeCanuck : What they are incapable of doing, (in recent years at least), is funding a program which is completed anything close to on time or on budget...or on
36 connies4ever : At least you're not bitter ...
37 Post contains images redflyer : Interesting observation - and all of it correct. What is even more interesting is that all of those were borne out of a need of necessity in the mids
38 474218 : So cracking was found, that is why they test aircraft! A lot of people on a.net love the C-17, but they must have forgot, or never knew, that the C-17
39 kanban : It's not the cracking itself that's the worry, it's how early in the designed life it occurred. What else will fail in under 20% of the design requir
40 474218 : Since we know nothing more than a bulkhead failed. What we don't know is why it failed. Was there an inclusion in the forging, Was there a swarf cut
41 redflyer : Wouldn't those be just as egregious as a failure to properly design the part? These are production aircraft and everything about the construction pro
42 474218 : No because those are one off errors that effect one part, a real design fault effects the entire fleet!
43 JoeCanuck : When my taxes are going into money pit programs like this, I think I have every right to demand some accountability...if you're ok with it, that's yo
44 Post contains links ThePointblank : There is a significant learning curve for these new 5th generation aircraft. I will point to this RAND study that compares the development of the F/A
45 spudh : Thats what they thought maybe, except that they failed at the fundamental design point of getting the aerodynamics of the wing right resulting in deg
46 JoeCanuck : This isn't state of the art avionics, radar, exotic stealth coatings, engines, systems or communications systems...it's aluminum bulkheads...failing
47 ThePointblank : Speaking of development difficulties... guess the airplane... - A static wing test wing failed 22% below requirements – both wings were totally des
48 JoeCanuck : Basing success as a comparison of other programs that were significantly later and more expensive than the contracted company said, does little to en
49 474218 : I could ask the same question only in reverse. Lockheed (Later to become Lockheed Martin) won the contract to build over 800 F-22's. After the contra
50 JoeCanuck : They were paid for the development of the aircraft and the cost of each unit sold was increased. Lockheed isn't out of pocket on the F-22, though the
51 XT6Wagon : Part of the issue with the F22 program though is that the F22 that LM put into the competition and won the contract with has little to nothing to do
52 ThePointblank : The costs of development is fixed and is amortized over the production of the aircraft. Take the B-2 bomber. Originally, 132 were planned. The produc
53 JoeCanuck : I agree...the B2 is a great example...1/4 the planes for 4 times the price.
54 Powerslide : You think having the worlds most sophisticated military is going to be cheap? I'd rather spend 5 times the price for a fighter/bomber knowing your en
55 JoeCanuck : Don't look at me...I didn't say it was going to be cheap...Lockheed did. Actually, if I see a doctor doing something wrong, (like giving my mother me
56 Post contains images Powerslide : We elected a Conservative Majority so the majority of Canadians elected the JSF. Simple as that. You or the left wing agenda driven media can't stop
57 Arniepie : A stupid question maybe but seeing that Canada (and maybe also Australia) have a capped budget for the acquisition of the JSF (9billion like quoted be
58 Post contains images Powerslide : The $9 billion is in USD since you can't buy American aircraft with Canadian/foreign funds. The dollar has now slipped a little so you can't count on
59 Post contains images kanban : The way things are going if country's have only allotted 9 Billion for this program, they may end up with only 2 aircraft..
60 bennett123 : Powerslide Is'nt that a bit simplistic. Just because you vote for a party does not mean that you agree with all their policies. Even for those who rea
61 JoeCanuck : The F-18 and f-15 had fatigue failures after decades, of service. There is no comparison with the F-35 program. Lockheed claimed they would already h
62 Powerslide : What really needs to happen here is the media has to get out of the way and let the engineers and pilots do their job wringing out the airplane. Seems
63 ThePointblank : Actually, wrong. There are penalties for withdrawing from the MOU at this late stage of the JSF program. The JSF Memorandum of Understanding clearly
64 Post contains links FoxTwo : Can you please explain where you are getting these figures? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee..._Lightning_II_Canadian_procurement ?????????? The
65 JoeCanuck : ...and there's the rub. That still doesn't equate to price protection or a delivery schedule for the production models. As for a way out, even with t
66 FoxTwo : Just wanted to point out there are others involved in this forum. It would be nice if you guys could address some other questions and points instead
67 Post contains links ThePointblank : http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ns-f35-production-phase-mou-02869/ http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-no...s-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&id=347
68 Post contains images Baroque : I think it falls into the "if only you knew what I know category" which is OK when someone with an NDA uses it sparingly, but plonked on with a bucke
69 ThePointblank : FYI, the F/A-18 vertical stabilizer cracks happened right after IOC. It resulted in a grounding of the new F/A-18 in the early 1980's. Furthermore, a
70 Post contains links ThePointblank : It seems the cracking problems have been resolved, and flight testing is ramping up: [Edited 2011-10-15 22:44:50]
71 GST : So what year is it now then? But this is good news, once again the testing regime proves its worth at tracking down and ironing out bugs before aircr
72 Post contains links Arniepie : Not wanting to rain on anybody's parade but it seems that with a new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff comes a new wake-up call as to the price an
73 kanban : I'm not convinced that the cracking problem is solved to the specification life span, it is probably patched/modified to allow more testing time and s
74 Powerslide : Sure the US could cancel the F35B, but then what would they do with these amp. ships? USS Wasp (LHD-1) USS Essex (LHD-2) USS Kearsarge (LHD-3) USS Bo
75 Arniepie : It looks like that after the AV8B period they will be solely used as a heli platform and maybe some future small UCAV's that can launch from a smalle
76 Oroka : Sell them?
77 ThePointblank : Not exactly. The F-35 program was born out of a need for commonality and reduced development costs had the three separate services pursued their own
78 Arniepie : Okay, at the risk of sounding like the perpetual pessimistic voice let me try and summarize what I believe was one of the original fundamental critiq
79 JoeCanuck : Indeed...instead, it's turned into a smoking bargain. The truth is, they are building 3 fighters at the same time. The B model especially shares litt
80 ThePointblank : The media could quite easily ressurrect articles that they wrote during the F/A-18 test and acquisition programme, and merely change dates, manufactu
81 Post contains links and images connies4ever : Where is there a need for commonality ? Why not have 2 or 3 fighter types if they actually work ? Look at the Warthog....it's a remarkably successful
82 Post contains images Powerslide : The CF-18's have only had this ability since last year, they did just fine without it since the 80's. It's a nice thing to have, not a necessity like
83 Oroka : You know, all those first day of war strikes we will be doing in the high arctic that we will need the stealth for... I would think the point if sover
84 Powerslide : Ask a Canadian fighter pilot what he would rather fly. What. Drop tanks are used for fuel, not ground radar detection.
85 GST : The Ruskies will be well aware of them doing their thing anyway, it's hard to ignore active airbases, and you don't need drop tanks to appear on rada
86 Post contains images connies4ever : I might not give you a break but I'll share this little nugget: I am enormously aware that we have an air force. My Dad + 4 uncles are/were air force
87 Powerslide : Agreed - I see it every day. I personally liked when we were the Canadian Forces, the RCAF is too British for my taste. With the size of our fleet we
88 Post contains links and images ThePointblank : F-22's when they were doing NORAD intercepts were slinging drop tanks like below: The actual stealth signature of jets like the F-22 is highly classi
89 Oroka : Probably a fighter jet... do I get bonus points for guessing what a Canadian bus driver would rather drive? Bet those fighter pilots who fly fighter
90 ThePointblank : Correct. And not only Inuvik, Yellowknife, Whitehorse, etc... basically anywhere where there is a paved runway. We don't like operating the CF-18's o
91 Powerslide : There are only two postings that will have the CF35, Cold Lake and Bagotville.
92 ThePointblank : There is the occasional forward deployment to a Forward operating base, such as the occasional trip to Gander, Comox, etc.
94 Post contains images Powerslide : There are deployments and there are postings.
95 Post contains links ThePointblank : Meanwhile on the testing front... http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...11%20F-35%20Test%20Targets%20Early Lockheed Martin's is running on schedule f
96 kanban : I went to see what "significantly" equals.. they finished 875 so far this year and are running at 100 a month.. that will make it about 1000 by years
97 ThePointblank : 100 test flights over 12 months: 1200 test flights, and they plan to continue ramping up the test schedule. Furthermore, they are getting ahead of th
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F-35 Structural Cracking Still Being Resolved
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...
Ex-RAAF Boeing 707 Being Scrapped posted Sun Aug 21 2011 17:48:27 by fanofjets
Dewline: Bipartisan Conspiracy Against F-35 & V-22 posted Tue Aug 9 2011 10:43:50 by oykie
Man Loses Life Being Sucked Into Hercules Engine! posted Sun Aug 7 2011 21:51:32 by notaxonrotax
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
F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots posted Tue May 17 2011 21:06:40 by ThePointblank
More Bad F-35 News Range Minimum Not Met posted Fri May 13 2011 17:02:50 by kanban
Shuttle Endeavour Being Built (pics). posted Fri Apr 29 2011 07:35:45 by fxramper
More F-35 Cost Problems posted Thu Apr 21 2011 18:19:10 by kanban
U.S. Not Happy With F-35 Engine Cost Overruns posted Thu Apr 14 2011 17:55:57 by AirRyan
How Many F-4's Are Still Operational? posted Tue Jan 3 2012 01:29:27 by faro
Italian Press Attacks F-35 Order posted Mon Jan 2 2012 16:08:58 by jollo
Nasa Super Guppy...Still Flying? posted Mon Dec 26 2011 15:39:37 by kanban
Japan Orders (4) F-35's posted Tue Dec 20 2011 12:24:33 by as739x
F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's posted Mon Dec 12 2011 20:09:51 by ThePointblank
Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money? posted Sat Dec 3 2011 08:24:14 by B17GUNNER24

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format