Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's  
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1815 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 13974 times:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Some of the important notes:

Quote:
At that time, Griffith had taken one of the initial F-35A test aircraft to 583 KCAS (exceeding Mach 1.2). Now, as the pace of testing continues to accelerate despite earlier delays caused by an inflight dual generator failure, and problems with the integrated power package (IPP), the jet has been flown to Mach 1.61.
Quote:

The aircraft has also been flown to 9.9g – which is 0.9g beyond the operational limits.

On the stealth signature:

Quote:
The aircraft “is meeting or exceeding the low observable requirements, so we know we have a stealthy aircraft which is fantastic.”

It sounds like the F-35 can be pushed pretty hard in terms of performance. It seems like the claims that F-35 won't be able to exceed Mach 1.5 (i.e. from Sweetman) are shot to pieces.

68 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 13918 times:

But can she hang inverted with a Mig-28 in a four G negative dive?


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4737 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13880 times:

Yes, it's very slow, by any standard, at least it's incredibly expensive though..


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1894 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13689 times:

The US tends to understate military capability. The F-22 was often quoted at M1.6 supercruise, but was hitting M1.78 when tested.
The Janes figures often quoted tended to use those understated figures while using somewhat optimistic numbers for certain other nations hardware.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineAutothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1603 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13686 times:

Just as comparison:

The Typhoon has reached during "real-life" tests 10,6G. It can be sustained for indefinte periods even the pilot can give speak commands through the anti G suite dragonfly.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums....php?124670-EF-Typhoon-News/page71

A Rafale pilot has flown the plane over a time of 2min at 10G.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2315 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13670 times:

Auto, I think it's safe to say no American made aircraft will ever meet or exceed the performance of European aircraft or that of their European pilots. Why these Yanks even try is beyond me.

User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 13625 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The aircraft has also been flown to 9.9g – which is 0.9g beyond the operational limits

I think given the maturity of the program this detail is worth mentioning...

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 4):
The Typhoon has reached during "real-life" tests 10,6G

9g is the usual manoeuvre limit set for combat aircrafts, probably based on the rationale that the human body can not sustain very much in practical terms. That said the actual structure is sized against a load of 9G times an ultimate factor which in civil aviation is 1.5, and may even be greater in military aviation, which means that the structure of any combat aircraft is in principle capable of withstanding loads of about 13-14G.

I remember reading in article where a pilot from the agressor squadron in Miramar pulled its F21 to 13G to avoid a collision with an F14. I know you would probably want a source but I don't have it. Just saying that this kind of event happens more often than one thinks.



Stephane
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 13551 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Some of the important notes:

Quote:
At that time, Griffith had taken one of the initial F-35A test aircraft to 583 KCAS (exceeding Mach 1.2). Now, as the pace of testing continues to accelerate despite earlier delays caused by an inflight dual generator failure, and problems with the integrated power package (IPP), the jet has been flown to Mach 1.61.
Quote:

The aircraft has also been flown to 9.9g – which is 0.9g beyond the operational limits.

On the stealth signature:

Quote:
The aircraft “is meeting or exceeding the low observable requirements, so we know we have a stealthy aircraft which is fantastic.”

It sounds like the F-35 can be pushed pretty hard in terms of performance. It seems like the claims that F-35 won't be able to exceed Mach 1.5 (i.e. from Sweetman) are shot to pieces.

All that said, many many problems exist in the F-35 program and are significant enough that DoD itself has recommended a reduction in the LRIP rate. Some of the problems are identified as "major". One of the majors is classified and I would guess (and it is a guess) that it relates to stealth. High angle of attack buffet, the helmet system, and "mission systems" are also identified as major.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ling-early-f-35-production-365933/



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 938 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 13536 times:

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 4):
A Rafale pilot has flown the plane over a time of 2min at 10G.


eek!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_Coaster

Quote:

The Euthanasia Coaster is an art concept for a steel roller coaster designed to kill its passengers...The ride's seven inversions would inflict 10 g on its passengers for 60 seconds

I know the Rafale pilot is used to the effects of g, and probably trained for this demonstrator mission specifically, and is wearing a g suit but...blimey!


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4936 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13491 times:




Quoting flagon (Reply 6):
I remember reading in article where a pilot from the agressor squadron in Miramar pulled its F21 to 13G to avoid a collision with an F14.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thomas P. McManus
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tyler Rogoway - Hangar Seventy One Aviation Photo Works


It would be very enlightening to see the Kfir doing that.....

http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...cts/kfir-jet/images/2-kfir-jet.jpg



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineAutothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1603 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13489 times:

Quoting flagon (Reply 6):
9g is the usual manoeuvre limit set for combat aircrafts, probably based on the rationale that the human body can not sustain very much in practical terms.

Wrong, new anti g suits like the dragon fly G-Multiplus can enable trained pilots to sustain 9g even without pressure breathing and Eurofighter pilots to fly with 10g for a indefinite time.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 13439 times:

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 10):
Quoting flagon (Reply 6):
9g is the usual manoeuvre limit set for combat aircrafts, probably based on the rationale that the human body can not sustain very much in practical terms.

Wrong, new anti g suits like the dragon fly G-Multiplus can enable trained pilots to sustain 9g even without pressure breathing and Eurofighter pilots to fly with 10g for a indefinite time.

That's not wrong, as 9G is the usual load limit against which most of fighters have been designed to so far (Typhoon may be an exception I don't know but that's not the point). This limit, whether it 7G or 9G or whatever it has to be according to the aircraft specifications, is driven by human limitations since structurally speaking there is nothing preventing the plane designer from designing the structure so that it can withstand silly accelerations like 50G, appart from the fact that this would add ridiculous and unecessary amount of weight in the airframe.

I just wanted to point out that when you see an operational limit of 9G or something quoted for a given aircraft, that does not mean it cannot be exceeded in the real life (providing that the pilot can sustain it one way or another via g-suits or seats "a la F-16" maybe) as there is additional structural margin baked into the design via an ultimate factor as mentioned in my previous post.



Stephane
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13227 times:

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 10):
Wrong, new anti g suits like the dragon fly G-Multiplus can enable trained pilots to sustain 9g even without pressure breathing and Eurofighter pilots to fly with 10g for a indefinite time.

Why it makes the eurofighter the number one choice for airshows.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10239 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 13041 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting L-188 (Reply 1):
But can she hang inverted with a Mig-28 in a four G negative dive?

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

  



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlinevzlet From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 839 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 12926 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
It seems like the claims that F-35 won't be able to exceed Mach 1.5 (i.e. from Sweetman) are shot to pieces.

Mach 1.5 has indeed been met and exceeded, but not without pain:

"Finally, recent testing at Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, revealed excessive structural heating with the afterburner on for extended periods. Flight tests to speeds up to Mach 1.6 with the afterburner engaged for several minutes generated enough heat to damage the horizontal tail (peeling and bubbling of coating about the size of a fist). There was also some degradation of thermal panels in the engine. While solutions are being evaluated, the program office has established aircraft operations limits, reducing the top speed to Mach 1.0 with afterburner operations limited to 1-2 minutes. In order to get full afterburner performance back in the aircraft, it may be necessary to change the material and or add structure to the tail."

(From page 18 of the F-35 Concurrency Review at http://www.pogo.org/resources/nation...y-quick-look-review-20111129.html)



"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 12888 times:

Quoting vzlet (Reply 14):
Mach 1.5 has indeed been met and exceeded, but not without pain:

Excellent news. They found and issue during flight testing, you know, what they are supposed to do, and will soon have the problem corrected.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 12825 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 15):
Excellent news. They found and issue during flight testing, you know, what they are supposed to do, and will soon have the problem corrected.

When in doubt, rationalize.    This is still a deeply troubled program.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3728 posts, RR: 27
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12716 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 15):
They found and issue during flight testing

Once again an obvious engineering miscalculation that should have been identified in computer modeling is found in flight test... so how many airframes will require extensive rebuild.

I'ts time to stop production entirely until all the miscalculations are identified, resolved and tested. what good will 60+ birds waiting for rebuild do anybody.


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4936 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12672 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 17):
I'ts time to stop production entirely until all the miscalculations are identified, resolved and tested. what good will 60+ birds waiting for rebuild do anybody.

Apart from price and offset arrangements, could that be the reason why Japan's defense ministry is holding out on making an announcement and confirming its choice?

.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...or-f-x-requirement-reports-365971/

Quote:
"Several major Japanese publications cited sources as saying that Tokyo favoured the F-35A in the 40-aircraft deal, and suggested that the decision will be officially announced on 16 December. The deal is expected to value $8 billion, they said.

Japan's defence ministry declined to confirm when an announcement will be made, adding: 'the government has not yet decided the type of aircraft'."



Of course, the reports did not mention which year.  



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1580 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12673 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 15):
Excellent news. They found and issue during flight testing, you know, what they are supposed to do, and will soon have the problem corrected.

You must be joking. "Several minutes" of afterburner use that may end up forcing you to add *structure* to the tail. You call that a routine oversight?...sigh...

In the words of connies4ever: deeply troubled. The quicker the program is put out of its misery the better for everyone.

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 12606 times:

I could easily understand if the programme was troubled by various software and system issues. However the amount of fatigue and crack issues they seem to have to deal with at this stage of the programme still amazes me as nowadays you would expect this kind of things to be a lot more under control, especially with the experience and the lessons learnt from the F22 which I believe uses roughly the same airframe design phylosphy (internal parts metallic, external parts composite wherever possible).
I guess the complexity of the programme does not help, the F35B variant alone with all the moveables everywhere must be quite challenging....



Stephane
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 12549 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 17):
Once again an obvious engineering miscalculation
Quoting faro (Reply 19):
You must be joking.

Oh, here we go again, people who think they are smarter or can do a better job than the engineers at Lockheed. There hasn't been ONE single aircraft in production since the beginning of time that hasn't had issues during testing. I guess they should have cancelled the Raptor program when it landed wheels up. Somehow, the anti-jsf fanboi's think the F35 should be PERFECT after the first rivet is installed.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 12484 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 21):
Oh, here we go again, people who think they are smarter or can do a better job than the engineers at Lockheed. There hasn't been ONE single aircraft in production since the beginning of time that hasn't had issues during testing. I guess they should have cancelled the Raptor program when it landed wheels up. Somehow, the anti-jsf fanboi's think the F35 should be PERFECT after the first rivet is installed.

How long since FF ? How many prototype, SDD, and LRIP a/c produced and flying ? And there are still so many issues that the DoD itself is recommending cutting back production so the problems can (possibly) be sorted out. The 'secret' problem we don't know. So, as Rummy would have said, it's an unknown unknown.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 12480 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 22):
And there are still so many issues that the DoD itself is recommending cutting back production so the problems can (possibly) be sorted out

You say this like it's a bad thing.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 12462 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 23):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 22):
And there are still so many issues that the DoD itself is recommending cutting back production so the problems can (possibly) be sorted out

You say this like it's a bad thing.

After this long long period of testing, and now using production a/c, yes, it is a bad thing. It's an indicator that the overall design is possibly not robust, and that the production process is not well controlled, if controlled at all.

This was supposed to be a "super fighter", best in brand, produced by the smartest brains money could buy (money apparently not being an object in this exercise), and using the best computer-aided design and production tools available.

And what is the result to date ? Oh, well, near the afterburner there is evidence of heat damage. Who would have ever thought surfaces near the AB would get hot ? The helmet system not working. High AoA buffet, high AoA ability being touted as one of the a/c's strengths. And of course the "classified" problem - whatever that might be.

Where/when does this end and how much more will civilians, who foot the military bill, be soaked for ? {Apologies for my dangling participle}



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1815 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 12773 times:

Every past fighter has had issues. The F-15 had buffet problems until the wing tips were raked. The F-22 had software and thermal problems. These issues may be typical of modern aircraft development.


However think of it this way; the F-35 is not one fighter program: its three... so its aggregating the problems inherent in three different macro requirements into a single airframe. Given the in depth coverage of this fighter, I think alot of people are going OMG ITS A DISASTER! without understanding that #1 this is not exceptional, #2 the program is 1/5th of the way through its development process when you're probably going to see the most issues crop up.

I think for people who are most concerned about the structural issue should re-read this line in the report:

Although major failures have occurred early in fatigue testing, they are not remarkable when viewed against the background of other tactical aircraft programs. They appear to be individual engineering failures of the kind routinely discovered in fatigue testing. (page 13)


User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6514 posts, RR: 54
Reply 26, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks ago) and read 12671 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 24):
After this long long period of testing, and now using production a/c, yes, it is a bad thing. It's an indicator that the overall design is possibly not robust, and that the production process is not well controlled, if controlled at all.

I think that few people realize the magnitude of work which goes into developing a modern fighter which really has a performance edge on existing planes. How many years did the Typhoon take? Roughly two decades.

There is one other major difference compared to earlier days. During the Cold War new planes were often rushed into production. We can begin with the F-100. How many pilots did the F-100A unnecessarily kill? It wasn't until the F-100D that the worst shortcomings had been ironed out. Many planes got far out in the alphabet with their suffix version identification or Mark number before the initial performance specs were met. Early versions were often fast either scrapped, rebuilt into newer versions, or sometimes handed over to training units.

Today is different. It has no meaning to produce production F-35s which are just as good or marginally better than an F-16 (which is a magnificent plane). Better keep the F-16 flying and finish off the F-35 development completely.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2121 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks ago) and read 12849 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 26):
I think that few people realize the magnitude of work which goes into developing a modern fighter which really has a performance edge on existing planes. How many years did the Typhoon take? Roughly two decades.

There is one other major difference compared to earlier days. During the Cold War new planes were often rushed into production. We can begin with the F-100. How many pilots did the F-100A unnecessarily kill? It wasn't until the F-100D that the worst shortcomings had been ironed out. Many planes got far out in the alphabet with their suffix version identification or Mark number before the initial performance specs were met. Early versions were often fast either scrapped, rebuilt into newer versions, or sometimes handed over to training units.

Today is different. It has no meaning to produce production F-35s which are just as good or marginally better than an F-16 (which is a magnificent plane). Better keep the F-16 flying and finish off the F-35 development completely.

Thank you for a great counterpoint to the naysayers. Any program is going to have its share of difficulties, but all the more so when pushing the edge and especially when combining different service requirements. How much teething problems did the Harrier have? The V-22? Anyone on this forum should have a pretty good idea of the various military aviation programs that went thru numerous problems but wound up being great and viable airframes.

I for one hope the F-35 keeps pushing thru. And here's the biggest point I think some people are missing... it's not like if we scrapped it and started another replacement aircraft program to replace the same 4th gen fighters that that program is going to be flawless, on time and on budget. It would have its own share of problems, so why waste all the capitol and experience invested in the F-35? That would be the colossal waste, not continuing on and fine tuning this bird.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3728 posts, RR: 27
Reply 28, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 12845 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 21):
Oh, here we go again, people who think they are smarter or can do a better job than the engineers at Lockheed.


Maybe it's the pot calling the kettle black... I have 35 years in the business... if your profile age is correct, I wonder where the "knowledge" comes from that's constantly spouted. Simple things like swapping AL for TI without stress checks, failing to profile afterburner heat patterns impact on adjacent surfaces, etc. are not things to be caught on line 20 in flight test.. They are basic engineering. Yes they can all be fixed, but the point is they should never have happened. As this story goes on, it appears that the company was so busy selling the plane to the government that they skimped on the design end and will be playing catch up at added taxpayer cost for some time.

When I suggest the stop production until they have the issues resolved, it's not because I dislike the plane, it's because I dislike the cost escalation.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 29, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 12846 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 24):
Oh, well, near the afterburner there is evidence of heat damage. Who would have ever thought surfaces near the AB would get hot ?

Take a look at some of the photos of the F-100. All of them pretty much have heat discoloration on the fuselage forward of the empanage from the engine. Some of the aircraft in Nam the SEATAC paint is litterally burned off.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 25):
Every past fighter has had issues. The F-15 had buffet problems until the wing tips were raked. The F-22 had software and thermal problems. These issues may be typical of modern aircraft development.

Agreed and not just modern aircraft.

The YP38 crashed
The YP51 crashed
The YB17 crashed
The YB29 crashed
The F4U-1 prototype crashed
The F-14 prototype crashed
The Saab Griffen crashed
The F-16 prototype crashed

One of the reasons you fly prototypes is to find out flaws. I think it was Bud Anderson who said, "Never Fly the A model of ANYTHING!!!"

Quoting flagon (Reply 20):
However the amount of fatigue and crack issues they seem to have to deal with at this stage of the programme still amazes me as nowadays you would expect this kind of things to be a lot more under control, especially with the experience and the lessons learnt from the F22 which I believe uses roughly the same airframe design phylosphy (internal parts metallic, external parts composite wherever possible).

Part of me wants to agree with you but by the same token I also think that a lot of the reason it hasn't is that the engineers are using the electronics to cut a sharper blade then was possible in draft paper days. In other words rather then using the computers to build a more rugged aircraft, they are using it to get closer to the failure point for better performace.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 13):
Quoting L-188 (Reply 1):
But can she hang inverted with a Mig-28 in a four G negative dive?

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you

Ok, I am secure enough in my manhood to read the Meg Ryan/Kelly McGillis lines.....Take me to bed or loose me forever



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1815 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 12783 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 29):
Part of me wants to agree with you but by the same token I also think that a lot of the reason it hasn't is that the engineers are using the electronics to cut a sharper blade then was possible in draft paper days. In other words rather then using the computers to build a more rugged aircraft, they are using it to get closer to the failure point for better performace.

Indeed.

Finding cracks during testing is normal and is to be expected. If you aren't finding cracks during testing, then you have heavily overbuilt the airplane, and haven't gotten the most structural efficiency you could. Practically every fighter design in current service has had issues structurally that were discovered during testing, and fixed then. The testing phase is the best time to fix issues that are discovered then, as you don't want to IOC a type and then discover major structural flaws down the road (like the F/A-18), or many years down the road (like the F-15).


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3728 posts, RR: 27
Reply 31, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12612 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 30):
Finding cracks during testing is normal


some at the envelope extremes yes, those within the "really safe" end of the envelope no... the bulkhead cracking is the latter, not the former.

We are so to conditioned to expect modification/repair programs to make new military planes meet specs, and the associated cost overruns, that we see it as the 'normal' way of doing business. Most of these items come from skimping on engineering analysis and computer modeling. Yes some things require actual flight test to locate, but too many of the F-35's problems I believe result from the old "government will pay for the modifications if they want the product" syndrome. Some on the electronic side appear to be from pushing lab technology before it is robust enough for production and mission use. Yes everybody wants the latest.. and some test results look great, but let's limit the test fleet size until both the plane and the equipment are robust enough for production.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12558 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 28):
but the point is they should never have happened.

Nothing is built perfect the first time. This is why the first F35 off the line didn't go straight into service. This program is no different than any other fighter jet that was developed in the last 100 years. Thinking it should be perfect and problems shouldn't exist is ignorant and asinine.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 33, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 12527 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 25):
Every past fighter has had issues. The F-15 had buffet problems until the wing tips were raked. The F-22 had software and thermal problems. These issues may be typical of modern aircraft development.
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 26):
During the Cold War new planes were often rushed into production. We can begin with the F-100. How many pilots did the F-100A unnecessarily kill? It wasn't until the F-100D that the worst shortcomings had been ironed out.
Quoting L-188 (Reply 29):
The YP38 crashed
The YP51 crashed
The YB17 crashed
The YB29 crashed
The F4U-1 prototype crashed
The F-14 prototype crashed
The Saab Griffen crashed
The F-16 prototype crashed

Quite. And none of these a/c were designed using CAD and numerical windtunnels. Edge issues will often bite you and that's what the two tools aforementioned are supposed to protect you from, in addition to giving you a sound design. Apparently not with the F-35.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13239 posts, RR: 77
Reply 34, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12511 times:

At least there have been no instances of the pilot's O2 supply being lethally deficient, several years AFTER entering service.

It's the same with the A400M, some seem to be unaware or choose to forget, that the C-17 had major developmental problems, faced cancellation, had significant opponents on Capitol Hill.
Though one opponent who tried hard to cancel it, the then Defence Secretary, Dick Cheney, might have the additional motivation of the C-17 being built in his political enemies backyard, as we saw at the time with a range of other programs he went after, even if they were, like the C-17, important for the post Cold War military rather then just a hangover from it.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7469 posts, RR: 8
Reply 35, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12487 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 26):
I think that few people realize the magnitude of work which goes into developing a modern fighter which really has a performance edge on existing planes. How many years did the Typhoon take? Roughly two decades.

Here's the issue I have with this principle being applied wholesale to all new programs. We are supposed to be in the age of computers when complex shapes are modelled in software, built to the specifications in different locations, and when bought together they fit like a glove, in most instances with minimal if any adjustments.

Somehow, computers do not seem to have reduced cost or time to market for these programs but in every other facet of live they have improved efficiency, speed and productivity. Example the F-22, as much as persons today are talking about continuing production, the F-35 is presently a mirror of the F-22 program, by the time the a/c gets into the hands of the services, its technology will be obsolete. The F-22 went from pure fighter, to attack a/c and one and one, does anyone today really know the reason why it took over a decade to get the a/c into production?

The F-35 like all current programs suffers from high cost, this was before it was even selected, hence one frame being selected to perform a multitude of functions across three different services, folks shudder to think of the cost if 3 seperate a/c were selected.

That's an idea, rather than selecting one frame the bid should have been to see which company could produce a frame at a lower cost and let the services select. Dreaming I know, no one makes prototypes and offers them up, what you make is a sale pitch and let the government pay for the prototype.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3728 posts, RR: 27
Reply 36, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12328 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 32):
Nothing is built perfect the first time. This is why the first F35 off the line didn't go straight into service. This program is no different than any other fighter jet that was developed in the last 100 years. Thinking it should be perfect and problems shouldn't exist is ignorant and asinine.



Look nobody is saying items don't crop up in a test program, what I'm saying is some of the problems in this program should not have cropped up.. They are a result of shoddy engineering and company management policies... Now maybe your expectations based on a limited life experience make it OK. It's not OK with me. I also believe that your 100 years of precedence is equally faulty. The idea that we keep building these planes with defects that must be repaired at great cost is stupid.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 37, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 12155 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 33):
The F-16 prototype crashed

Quite. And none of these a/c were designed using CAD and numerical windtunnels.

I think the guys from Saab might disagree



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 38, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 12138 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 37):
I think the guys from Saab might disagree

Got me on that one.   I missed it in the list.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6514 posts, RR: 54
Reply 39, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12012 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 29):
I think it was Bud Anderson who said, "Never Fly the A model of ANYTHING!!!"

Ha ha! And he sure knows what he is talking about.

That same Bud Anderson, throughout his professional career, when he didn't fly an A model, then it was usually something even worse, an X or Y thing.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11989 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 21):
I guess they should have cancelled the Raptor program when it landed wheels up.

I guess I'm slow in the mornings...since no F-22 has landed wheels up (as far as I know), what is the meaning behind the statement?


User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 938 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11922 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 40):

I guess I'm slow in the mornings...since no F-22 has landed wheels up (as far as I know), what is the meaning behind the statement?

One has in flight testing after computer problems affecting flight controls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faB5bIdksi8


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 42, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11804 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 35):
Here's the issue I have with this principle being applied wholesale to all new programs. We are supposed to be in the age of computers when complex shapes are modelled in software, built to the specifications in different locations, and when bought together they fit like a glove, in most instances with minimal if any adjustments.

I think you have unrealistic expectations. Computer designs takes away a lot of uncertainty but not all.

Quoting par13del (Reply 35):
Somehow, computers do not seem to have reduced cost or time to market for these programs but in every other facet of live they have improved efficiency, speed and productivity

They have provided all of that. But then it has been directed towards additional performance.

Quoting kanban (Reply 36):
Look nobody is saying items don't crop up in a test program, what I'm saying is some of the problems in this program should not have cropped up.. They are a result of shoddy engineering and company management policies...

I think this is fair.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 43, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11855 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 5):
I think it's safe to say no American made aircraft will ever meet or exceed the performance of European aircraft or that of their European pilots. Why these Yanks even try is beyond me.

I guess that is why Europeans bought so many F-86s, F-104s, F-4s, and F-16s? France also bought several F-100s. Also, what is the actual kill ratio of European pilots over enemy pilots vs. US pilots over enemy pilots? That is the true standard for fighter pilot performance world wide.

The US flies to the edge of the envelope so Europe doesn't have to.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7652 posts, RR: 4
Reply 44, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 11775 times:

Quoting faro (Reply 19):
You must be joking. "Several minutes" of afterburner use that may end up forcing you to add *structure* to the tail. You call that a routine oversight?...sigh...

You can say whatever you like to Powerslide but he's the biggest fanboy I've ever seen, this program could be canned and he would still sing it praises.

It's now being re-examined in Norway, the opposition and the press are starting to make a lot of noise, even the normally sheep like Norwegians public are questioning the cost of this purchase; IMO sooner or later some country is going to cancel and others will follow.


User currently offlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3563 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11728 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):
France also bought several F-100s.

Not to mention the F-8s...



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 46, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11721 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 29):
Take a look at some of the photos of the F-100. All of them pretty much have heat discoloration on the fuselage forward of the empanage from the engine. Some of the aircraft in Nam the SEATAC paint is litterally burned off.

That area you say is "heat discoloration" is in fact titanium. Titanium was used because of the heat produced by the afterburner.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13239 posts, RR: 77
Reply 47, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11727 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):
The US flies to the edge of the envelope so Europe doesn't have to.

British and French veterans of Suez might disagree - an action (rightly) stopped by US pressure.
Then the RN and RAF pilots in 1982, even with aircraft not really designed for the job, with minimal numbers and support and the nearest friendly base 3000 miles away - THAT is edge of the envelope, in human factors at least.

What if the RAAF had sent Mirage IIIE aircraft to Vietnam as well as Australian troops? Unknowable though we can reference the performance of the same aircraft in the Middle East at the time.
(Though range and endurance might have been an issue in SE Asia).

I believe the only air to air in Kosovo in 1999 - against a Mig-29 not an long obsolete model - was by the Dutch.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9533 posts, RR: 42
Reply 48, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11717 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 47):

And let's not forget the UK's contribution to Top Gun (the real thing, not the movie) - "the RN shows the US how to fly to the edge of the envelope".  


User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11719 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):
guess that is why Europeans bought so many F-86s, F-104s, F-4s, and F-16s? France also bought several F-100s. Also, what is the actual kill ratio of European pilots over enemy pilots vs. US pilots over enemy pilots? That is the true standard for fighter pilot performance world wide.
.

Common, let's put things in perspective here,
The kill ratio of both US and European pilots is next to negligible post WWII and Korea, fact is that most
important big aerial wars have been fought outside of Europe and the US and without the use of their respective pilots.

The US almost had air dominance from day one over most of Vietnam during the entire span of the conflict, besides
Vietnam there hasn't been one serious War that needed the full force of both the USAF and the NAVY/MARINES.
Same can be said about Europe, besides the Falklands and the UK and a number of small interventions their hasn't
been one serious War European nations where involved in until the 2nd Gulf War in '91.

That War was a joint effort between many nations whereby we had such an overweight against the Iraqis that an "air-war" would be serious overstatement, it was more an air-bombardment campaign that lead to a 100hr ground campaign and a subsequent overwhelming victory.
In the 3rd Gulf WAR between the USA/UK and IRAQ there wasn't even talk of IRAQI airborne resistance anymore.

Most post WWII full scale air-wars where fought between IRAQ-IRAN, ISRAEL and its neighbours, INDIA-PAKISTAN
and some other smaller conflicts around the globe, none of them directly involving both US and EUROPEAN forces.
Making a comparison as to their effectiveness is virtually impossible, if not completely absurd knowing that training
methodology, weapon systems, and level of available technology is as good as on par, besides I don't think the US
perceives any real threat coming from its European partners, it sure hasn't restructured its military so that they plan
for another war on European soil.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):

The US flies to the edge of the envelope so Europe doesn't have to.

Correction;
The US is willing to fly/fight to the edge if their own interests are at stake, same as other nations they do nothing
or the least possible if there is nothing to gain or protect something they would otherwise loose, eg Oil-Gas or other important supplies, strategic locations, important trade opportunities-partners.

What's true for the US and before the collapse of the Warsaw pact also the USSR is that the US is bend on setting
up big important strategically placed military posts outside of the US, they realize that being a superpower means
that you want to bring the fight to the opposers territory, preferably fighting its wars as far away as possible from US soil, best on the opposers grounds and if need be on an allie's territory.
Just look at how they now invest in tighter relations with Australia as such being able to set up a new big military
base on Australian ground ,again strategically placed to fight new conflicts protecting its interests in the new rising
economical centers of SE ASIA.

Don't get me wrong, I don't object to the US being in so many locations outside of its own borders, they are good
friends and good allies and I must admit that usually we all can count on you guys if needs be.
However I think we all need to realize that the umbrella they provide is always dependent on its own interests therefor
a healthy level of skepticism is a sound approach (Eg the last IRAQ war).
There are always a number of nations that want to be "the boss" and all things being equal I believe that the US is a better "boss" than many other candidates.

[Edited 2011-12-17 11:46:02]

[Edited 2011-12-17 11:46:30]


[edit post]
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1580 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 11451 times:

Quoting vzlet (Reply 14):
In order to get full afterburner performance back in the aircraft, it may be necessary to change the material and or add structure to the tail."

I'm really having trouble rationalising this. If the heating problem ends up needing only material changes that should not be too much of an issue. But if you need structural changes, this is hard to comprehend. Dabbling with structure at the back end of the aircraft will impact the fins and horizontal stabilisers. This does not at all seem like a trivial undertaking in terms of both engineering work and cost. And of course weight would increase.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable that I can help elucidate exactly what a structural re-work in that section would entail.

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 51, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 11367 times:

Quoting faro (Reply 50):
I'm really having trouble rationalising this. If the heating problem ends up needing only material changes that should not be too much of an issue.

There was never a material change!

The aft body, that section aft of the fuselage break used for removing and replacing the engine, was titanium on the prototype as it was on the last F-100F off the production line!

North American Aviation made a big deal out of the fact that the F-100 contained more titanium than any other aircraft at the time.


User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2197 posts, RR: 24
Reply 52, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 11318 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):
The US flies to the edge of the envelope so Europe doesn't have to.

Ummm. Falklands.


User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2197 posts, RR: 24
Reply 53, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 11334 times:

These stats are nice and all and the F-35 has to meet specs. But the truth of the matter is that, if you're getting an F-35 into a turning fight, you've already f----d up pretty badly. Let's not forget that there's F-35 models that might not necessarily be carrying a cannon.

User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2121 posts, RR: 1
Reply 54, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 11221 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 51):
North American Aviation made a big deal out of the fact that the F-100 contained more titanium than any other aircraft at the time.

That was probably true until the Blackbird, and the Blackbirds 93% titanium is a record that will almost surely never be broken.  



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 55, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 11089 times:

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 54):
That was probably true until the Blackbird, and the Blackbirds 93% titanium is a record that will almost surely never be broken.

If you mean the SR-71 (it had no official name) I am very familiar with the amount of titanium used. After my four months of Airframe Repair (sheet metal) tech school at Amarillo AFB I was assigned to the 4200th Field Maintenance Squadron (soon to become the 9th FMS) Beale AFB where I did structural repairs on the SR-71 until I was discharged.


User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1580 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 10985 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 51):
Quoting faro (Reply 50):
I'm really having trouble rationalising this. If the heating problem ends up needing only material changes that should not be too much of an issue.

There was never a material change!

The aft body, that section aft of the fuselage break used for removing and replacing the engine, was titanium on the prototype as it was on the last F-100F off the production line!

North American Aviation made a big deal out of the fact that the F-100 contained more titanium than any other aircraft at the time.

I was in fact referring to the F-35; reply 14 that I quote refers to the F-35.

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2121 posts, RR: 1
Reply 57, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10908 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 55):
(it had no official name)

I'm pretty sure everyone here knows what I'm referring to when I say Blackbird...

 



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3728 posts, RR: 27
Reply 58, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10890 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 57):


I'm pretty sure everyone here knows what I'm referring to when I say Blackbird...

A Beatles song .. Right   


User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10791 times:

Quoting GST (Reply 41):
Quoting checksixx (Reply 40):
I guess I'm slow in the mornings...since no F-22 has landed wheels up (as far as I know), what is the meaning behind the statement?

One has in flight testing after computer problems affecting flight controls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faB5b...dksi8

Err...no, you're mistaken then...I'm afraid you're confusing a YF-22 with a production F-22. It was simply a prototype. A production F-22 is very different. No F-22 has landed wheels up.

Quoting GDB (Reply 47):
I believe the only air to air in Kosovo in 1999 - against a Mig-29 not an long obsolete model - was by the Dutch.

1999? Why reference only that? There were a number of air to air kills.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 55):
If you mean the SR-71 (it had no official name) I am very familiar with the amount of titanium used. After my four months of Airframe Repair (sheet metal) tech school at Amarillo AFB I was assigned to the 4200th Field Maintenance Squadron (soon to become the 9th FMS) Beale AFB where I did structural repairs on the SR-71 until I was discharged.

What else would he mean?? Who cares about an official name??


User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 60, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10824 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 59):
Quoting GDB (Reply 47):
I believe the only air to air in Kosovo in 1999 - against a Mig-29 not an long obsolete model - was by the Dutch.

1999? Why reference only that? There were a number of air to air kills.

Wiki is quoting 50 Aircraft lost, including 6 lost MiG29 in air combat, most (not all) of the others destroyed on the ground
like in this instance "A number of G-4 Super Galebs which were destroyed in their hardened aircraft shelter by bunker-busting bombs which started a fire which spread because the shelter doors were not closed."

Anybody with more specific sources on the number/type of planes lost in A2A fights or NATO planes lost to enemie fire?

[Edited 2011-12-20 04:33:52]


[edit post]
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1815 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day ago) and read 9997 times:

More information: it appears that the Pentagon has probably inflated the costs for the structural modifications on existing aircraft by get this: 75%!

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...as-pound-foolish-air-force/2036431

Quote:
Concerns about retrofitting the first production models as needed modifications are identified during fielding. They're overblown. Industry experts say the Pentagon has probably overestimated these "concurrence" costs by 75 percent.

Moreover, given the high cost of maintaining aged aircraft, it's cheaper to pay for retrofitting first-off-the-line F-35 than to keep the older planes flying.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 62, posted (2 years 11 months 11 hours ago) and read 9769 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 61):

More information: it appears that the Pentagon has probably inflated the costs for the structural modifications on existing aircraft by get this: 75%!

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...36431

Pretty poor article using very poor arguments to make blind followers fight for the cause.

"Squeezing the F-35 program like toothpaste makes no sense. The U.S. taxpayer invested $50 billion in this program; it's time to start reaping the benefits. Buying more planes, faster brings down the per-unit cost."

Producing more makes the program more expensive. Looking at per unit cost only hides the total cost. Produce what you need. Everything above that is extra cost. That it brings down per unit cost does not make the program less expensive.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1815 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (2 years 11 months ago) and read 9653 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 62):

Producing more makes the program more expensive. Looking at per unit cost only hides the total cost. Produce what you need. Everything above that is extra cost. That it brings down per unit cost does not make the program less expensive.

Not necessarily, it means development costs are amortized over a larger number of units. The B-2 is the prime example; the per unit cost ballooned, with the result that there wasn't much in the way of costs savings by cutting how many units are produced. Cutting the number produced is a false economy, and has born out multiple times (B-2, F-22, etc).

The more F-35's produced (for both the US and foreign governments), the cheaper the aircraft becomes. With thousands of F-15's, F-16's, Harriers, and F/A-18's that need replacement, or coming due for very expensive overhauls due to their age, it will be cheaper to buy F-35's than to repair existing aircraft. The older the aircraft becomes, the more costly and expensive the repairs become.


User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1580 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9619 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 63):
Quoting cmf (Reply 62):

Producing more makes the program more expensive. Looking at per unit cost only hides the total cost. Produce what you need. Everything above that is extra cost. That it brings down per unit cost does not make the program less expensive.

Not necessarily, it means development costs are amortized over a larger number of units. The B-2 is the prime example; the per unit cost ballooned, with the result that there wasn't much in the way of costs savings by cutting how many units are produced. Cutting the number produced is a false economy, and has born out multiple times (B-2, F-22, etc).

The more F-35's produced (for both the US and foreign governments), the cheaper the aircraft becomes. With thousands of F-15's, F-16's, Harriers, and F/A-18's that need replacement, or coming due for very expensive overhauls due to their age, it will be cheaper to buy F-35's than to repair existing aircraft. The older the aircraft becomes, the more costly and expensive the repairs become.

Agreed but total cost program cost remains the bottom line. A production dollar remains just as weighty as a R&D dollar.

By producing more aircraft, production costs are obviously increased. If these production costs reflected the initial proportion of the initial USD 65 million per unit flyaway quote, it would admittedly be less of issue. The problem is that besides R&D costs, production costs have also increased.

I really doubt the program will be cancelled, but procurement will inevitably be materially scaled down.

Faro

[Edited 2011-12-29 03:00:17]


The chalice not my son
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 65, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8051 times:

Quoting faro (Reply 64):
A production dollar remains just as weighty as a R&D dollar.

That isn't true... at least not in most accepted accounting principals now in use. The methods for accounting each are separate and the R&D can be capitalized.

Production dollars are actually worse.

I am not one to say I'm smarter than the engineers at Lockheed.... but is it just me or is it getting harder and harder to get airplanes out the door for all manufacturers? Or rockets to space... or cars to the lot. Whatever it is, as a society we seem to be worse at making things.

NS


User currently offlinerheite From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 10 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7905 times:

Outside of the developement issues which any sort of new gen platform faces, I can tell you that in so far as the USMC is concerned, a replacement for the lawn dart (AV8B) is well overdue, especially with a doctrinal shift to return focus on the MEU and the Pacific area.

The fact that it could, if developed correctly, could replace not only the Harrier but also the F/A-18 B/C/D models deserves some credit.

I'll have to try and find the story but a search of Marines.mil will give you the article on the first F-35 being delivered to the USMC squron that will be standing up the F-35 program.



-R.K. Heite Sr
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 67, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7630 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 63):
Not necessarily, it means development costs are amortized over a larger number of units. The B-2 is the prime example; the per unit cost ballooned, with the result that there wasn't much in the way of costs savings by cutting how many units are produced. Cutting the number produced is a false economy, and has born out multiple times (B-2, F-22, etc).

Absolutely necessarily.

Let's say R&D is 1,000.
Let's say each unit is 100.

Producing 10 will cost you 2,000 meaning 200 per unit.
Producing 20 will cost you 3,000 meaning 150 per unit.

For which do you need to cough up most money?

Quoting gigneil (Reply 65):
the R&D can be capitalized

Most R&D must be expensed.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 65):
Production dollars are actually worse

If you use program accounting you can actually capitalize part of it.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 65):
but is it just me or is it getting harder and harder to get airplanes out the door for all manufacturers?

Today's airplanes have far more systems. With each system more things can go wrong. We are adding systems faster than we improve them.


User currently offlinerheite From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 10 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7511 times:

The F-35B is doing quite well, and other than the procurement questions, is on track. I'd be curious if the heating issues are related to the other varients...any information on which varient was having the heat issues?

http://www.marines.mil/unit/2ndmaw/P...sfirstF-35Baircrafttoitsfleet.aspx

http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/Pag...dVerticalLandingAboardUSSWASP.aspx

http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/Pag...-35BLightningIIMakingProgress.aspx



-R.K. Heite Sr
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's
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...
F-35 Combat Skills: "Between F-16 And F/A-18" posted Thu Mar 5 2009 09:35:55 by AC788
F-16 MACH/IAS Indicator Type And Model Name? posted Tue Feb 3 2009 09:28:04 by Wardialer
F 22 And F 35: Computer Hacked? posted Sun Mar 30 2008 08:09:36 by Mortyman
MiG-35 And Su-47 posted Sun Apr 6 2003 06:08:57 by Charleslp
AirForce 747 Doing Touch And Goes All Day In TUL posted Fri Mar 21 2003 20:27:06 by TechRep
Difference Between Su-35 And Su-37 posted Fri Sep 7 2001 13:31:42 by Gdarm
SpaceX Goes To ISS - COTS2/3 Launch Date posted Fri Dec 9 2011 10:57:55 by ZANL188
GE And Rolls-Royce Give Up On F136 JSF Engine posted Fri Dec 2 2011 07:57:16 by aviationweek
First And Only UK F-35B Rolled Out posted Tue Nov 22 2011 18:42:00 by yanqui67
Air Force One And President Obama At NCE For G-20 posted Tue Nov 1 2011 05:50:21 by MadameConcorde
Difference Between Su-35 And Su-37 posted Fri Sep 7 2001 13:31:42 by Gdarm
AFM: F-35 Can Supercruise posted Sat Nov 3 2012 14:58:39 by ThePointblank
Amazing SR-71 Article (and Photo) posted Fri Oct 12 2012 18:12:26 by 9V-SPJ

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format