Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F35 Program Filled With Problems In All Areas  
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Posted (3 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 8391 times:

Report out:

http://www.pogo.org/resources/nation...cy-quick-look-review-20111129.html

All I can say is wow.

Sounds like all varients are riddled with problems, but the carrier version is possibly facing some serious modifications to achieve an acceptable tail hook positioning.

Also the magic helmet the F35 relies on to do nearly everything appears to be only magic in its ability to suck money from tax payers.

62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8381 times:

The QLR suggests they continue development and even continue purchasing LRIP Lots, after all of the supposed disasters. The biggest problem with this program is all the media openness that it is being developed under. The C17 was a disaster during testing, with the wings basically falling off, now look at it. Where are all those people that called for it's cancellation now? In their holes were they belong. All these F35 issues are typical of modern aircraft development.

User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8341 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 1):
The C17 was a disaster during testing, with the wings basically falling off, now look at it. Where are all those people that called for it's cancellation now? In their holes were they belong. All these F35 issues are typical of modern aircraft development.

The C-17 might be a fine aircraft now, but at what cost, a similar thing can probably be said of the A400M.

About the F-35, somehow ironic that you claim that all these issues are normal for new fighters during their
development fase.
That is a somewhat simplistic representation of the trueth and contradicts what happened with previous important
fighter aircraft programs.
Let's take the F-15 for instance, sure it too had its issues, 2 that come to mind are the 25mm cannon that lead to
nothing and the Aim 84 missile that prooved too much of a hassle.
With all the normal issues comming with building a whole new revolutionary (at 70's standards) plane with all new
avionics and engines ,they choose the wise pad and decided too use many proven systems for the F-15 to not
complicate matters too much.
Also from the getgo they wisely decided to go against the commonality trend, than already widely in fashion, and build
the plane solely for the USAF and with only one initial task best described as "not a pound for air-to-ground".
The F-14 stayed with the NAVY and was optimized for carrier use, something that would've compromised the EAGLE
too much.

Enter the F-35 Lightning II.
As things are standing now it looks like nothing more than a pipedream.
Overpromised , underperformed and ridiculously expensive to both buy and operate.
Their whole philosophy seems to go against what is generally accepted as common sense, it promised to be one size fits all that can do every task better than any of its opponents fitted with all the latest gizmos for a more than competitive price.
Basically it failed on almost all accounts.
Many of its systems are undoubtedly leading edge (engine, radar, surface stealth materials, ...) but combined as a system it just is too much of a compromise with a cost that is unacceptable.
LM have managed to work against all tested and tried methods of how to build a new platform and that has
understandably made many people very critical.

As for your remark;


Quoting Powerslide (Reply 1):
The biggest problem with this program is all the media openness that it is being developed under.

Better consider yourself lucky that the media voice their concerns so openly that's what they're their for, not all of
their points may be equally well founded but I shiver to think what would happen if they said nothing, LM and the
DoD's would think they got a real carte blanche leadng to an even more catastrophic budget nightmare.

Also I'll be the first to admit that, as a layman, I'm probably too skeptical about new government projects (like this
also is one), and their is a good chance that we'll have too admit that things turn out better than we now can see.
Let's hope for the sake of our armed forces that they get something decent.
But I don't think that blind support for projects like these is the way to go, their are way too many people that
lack critical thought whenever it comes to weaponsystems and their usefulness and associated price.
Somehow believing that they are good, no matter their cost, is not a healhty way assuring the longterm
effectiveness of a country and subsequently its armed forces.

So until proven otherwise, by clearly more positive trends/messages/signs comming from this program, I remain skeptical towards how this plane will turn out to be compared with its competitors/similar platforms, and how much
it will ultimately cost and what our military have to give up just to use this miracle weapon.



[edit post]
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8336 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 1):
The QLR suggests they continue development and even continue purchasing LRIP Lots, after all of the supposed disasters. The biggest problem with this program is all the media openness that it is being developed under. The C17 was a disaster during testing, with the wings basically falling off, now look at it. Where are all those people that called for it's cancellation now? In their holes were they belong. All these F35 issues are typical of modern aircraft development.

How many years since FF ? How many prototypes, SDD, and LRIP a/c produced to date ? And now this report from the DoD itself that recommends cutting back the LRIP rate. I would say, as an ISO-certified auditor (in addition to the main thing I do), that this is a program that is not in control at this point. If it ever was. Oversold, overhyped. Now, I would wager, every single a/c currently flying will have a unique set of snags that will all have to be fixed individually at great cost. And the production processes will need to be changed - not a small thing.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1853 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8300 times:

Every US TACAIR asset flying today has had structural issues -- ALL of them. Ever notice those plates bolted on the LEX of F/A-18's? They reduce the adverse effect that LEX-generated vortices have on the verticals. How long ago were those installed? Ever notice the plates of metal bolted on the bases of the verticals on F/A-18s? Whaddaya think those are for? Ask older F/A-18 maintainers about center barrel replacements. Ask about life-limited E/Fs. Are these jets dead? No, they just have to go to a depot or drive-in mod for replacement or modification of some structural stuff.

Ever notice the square/rectangular pieces of tape in the intakes of AV-8B? Keeps the rivets in that section of the intake from from popping out and being ingested by the engine. How come that's an issue? Because the stiffeners put in the fuselage to stop cracks after the jet was in service caused a load transfer into the intake just in front of the engine -- causes rivets to pop out and feed the engine. Taping the area prevents the rivets from popping out and and being ingested by the engine.

Ask experienced F-16 maintainers about the structural load transfers (and resulting unexpected cracks) they've chased around the Viper for a couple decades. What ever happened to those F-16Ns that Top Gun flew?

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3):

How many years since FF ? How many prototypes, SDD, and LRIP a/c produced to date ? And now this report from the DoD itself that recommends cutting back the LRIP rate. I would say, as an ISO-certified auditor (in addition to the main thing I do), that this is a program that is not in control at this point. If it ever was. Oversold, overhyped. Now, I would wager, every single a/c currently flying will have a unique set of snags that will all have to be fixed individually at great cost. And the production processes will need to be changed - not a small thing.

However, the report recommends continuing with the program. suggests they continue development and even continue purchasing LRIP Lots. I guess they don't see it the same way as you.

Maybe you don't realize the point of the QLR. This report does not examine the 2016 capabilities fielded by the JSF. Rather its an examination of whether concurrency buys should continue right now. For most of these issues, fixes are already ordered on later planes, or development continues to find a solution.

If you want to make broad inferences about what might occur five years from now on one of the most complex aerospace projects in the world, you're within your right to do so. However its somewhat foolish given that the reports' authors suggest they should continue development and limited LRIP buys.


User currently offlinewvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8289 times:

You would have thought they would have learned after the F-111 adventure in trying to make in a 3 branch service plane do all.

User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1853 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8273 times:

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 5):
You would have thought they would have learned after the F-111 adventure in trying to make in a 3 branch service plane do all.

They did ok with the F-4 Phantom II.


User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8175 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 1):
The biggest problem with this program is all the media openness that it is being developed under. The C17 was a disaster during testing, with the wings basically falling off, now look at it. Where are all those people that called for it's cancellation now? In their holes were they belong. All these F35 issues are typical of modern aircraft development.

My thoughts exactly. You're right, these things are typical. What makes the situation really bad is that news about airplane faults travels faster than the speed of light and too often what's said is taken out of context or exagerated. As with any program that pushes the technological limits, there's going to be issues and resolving those costs money. That's the way the game plays. And as has been said before, when the problems are resolved and the airplane is performing the way it's supposed to, all this noise about issues and such will be forgotten.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8169 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 6):
Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 5):
You would have thought they would have learned after the F-111 adventure in trying to make in a 3 branch service plane do all.

They did ok with the F-4 Phantom II.

Bad example, contradicting the JSF's case.
It was originally build as a fighter/interceptor for the US NAVY.
Only later adapted for different tasks, with different services.
Another succesful fighter that got extra tasks and capabilities after its succesful beginning as a single mission
aircraft (fighter/interceptor).
When they got the basics right, they where again able to expand on it = same as later with F15/16&18.

The JSF , from the beginning, tries to be all things to all men, with a lot of immature technology.
That sounds a lot like a crossbreed between the former F111 and A5vigilante, one was too much of a compromise
to be good enough for all envisioned tasks for the different branches, the other had too much new technology making
it useless because it was too unreliable.

[Edited 2011-12-15 04:12:09]


[edit post]
User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8023 times:

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 8):
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 6):
Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 5):
You would have thought they would have learned after the F-111 adventure in trying to make in a 3 branch service plane do all.

They did ok with the F-4 Phantom II.

Bad example, contradicting the JSF's case.
It was originally build as a fighter/interceptor for the US NAVY.
Only later adapted for different tasks, with different services.

mmhh, I am not too sure about that, I wouldn't say designing an aircraft to meet a wide range of requriements from both Navy and Air Force is necessarily a lost battle. This has been done successfully for the Rafale with a high degree of commonality between the navy and the air force versions, whilst covering the whole spectrum of possible missions. On the contrary adapting an specialised aircraft for other mission types can sometimes be quite painfull.

But to be fair I think they might have been over ambitious with the F-35 as the B version makes it such a different aircarft (and the C version not quite similar to the A version) that LM is basically managing three programmes at the same time, ie there is poor degree of commonality. This is a complex programme that's all, not surprising they have to fix a lot of issues. From what can be read the crack issues they have to deal with now don't seem to be major problems, the way I understand it is that will require local design changes that they will have to implement in the next batches of aircarft, whilst repairing the planes already built at a later stage, potentially limiting these planes in terms of manoeuvre and number of flight hours in the meantime, with appropriate crack monitoring program?

So it looks like this will be sorted, and if they manage to keep the cost increase of the programme to a "reasonnable level", if I may say so, then IMO at the end of this difficult times the F35 will be a tremendous achievement.



Stephane
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7993 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 4):
Ask older F/A-18 maintainers about center barrel replacements.

Apples to oranges, you're comparing a well-used a/c in need of a centre-barrel replacement to a new a/c showing structural issues.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 4):
However, the report recommends continuing with the program. suggests they continue development and even continue purchasing LRIP Lots. I guess they don't see it the same way as you.

They can see it any way they choose and I agree they did not recommend stopping LRIP, they recommended slowing down. Which will push costs up somewhat. Stopping would have put costs up hugely since some of the workforce would be laid off - and who knows how many would come back ? That risk is too big from the p.o.v. of the program manager and DoD.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 4):
Maybe you don't realize the point of the QLR. This report does not examine the 2016 capabilities fielded by the JSF. Rather its an examination of whether concurrency buys should continue right now. For most of these issues, fixes are already ordered on later planes, or development continues to find a solution.

Indeed fixes are ordered for later planes. What about the sunk investment in the ones flying or limping right now ? Will they get fixed ? These are, theoretically at least, production a/c. My understanding of production is that "this is the finished model" ready for use.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 4):
If you want to make broad inferences about what might occur five years from now on one of the most complex aerospace projects in the world, you're within your right to do so. However its somewhat foolish given that the reports' authors suggest they should continue development and limited LRIP buys.

But isn't the notion that all these problems will be fixed and F-35 will be the wunderkind of all combat a/c a "broad inference" in itself ?

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 5):
You would have thought they would have learned after the F-111 adventure in trying to make in a 3 branch service plane do all.

Indeed. TFX/F-111 was a fiasco, proving that the one size fits all solution usually but not always, does not work.

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 8):
They did ok with the F-4 Phantom II.

Bad example, contradicting the JSF's case.
It was originally build as a fighter/interceptor for the US NAVY.
Only later adapted for different tasks, with different services.
Another succesful fighter that got extra tasks and capabilities after its succesful beginning as a single mission
aircraft (fighter/interceptor).
When they got the basics right, they where again able to expand on it = same as later with F15/16&18.

The JSF , from the beginning, tries to be all things to all men, with a lot of immature technology.
That sounds a lot like a crossbreed between the former F111 and A5vigilante, one was too much of a compromise
to be good enough for all envisioned tasks for the different branches, the other had too much new technology making
it useless because it was too unreliable.

   Excellent point, another apples to oranges comparison. F-4 was never conceived as a polyvalent (there's a historical term which all can look up) a/c. When the (then) RCAF looked at it, it was supposed to be a flat out interceptor. When there really WAS a Soviet threat, unlike now.

Quoting flagon (Reply 9):
mmhh, I am not too sure about that, I wouldn't say designing an aircraft to meet a wide range of requriements from both Navy and Air Force is necessarily a lost battle. This has been done successfully for the Rafale with a high degree of commonality between the navy and the air force versions, whilst covering the whole spectrum of possible missions. On the contrary adapting an specialised aircraft for other mission types can sometimes be quite painfull.

But really, what we're looking at is not an aircraft per se but a weapon system, and the 'goodness of fit' on a given a/c for a role often depends on the weapons carried into battle

Quoting flagon (Reply 9):
But to be fair I think they might have been over ambitious with the F-35 as the B version makes it such a different aircarft (and the C version not quite similar to the A version) that LM is basically managing three programmes at the same time, ie there is poor degree of commonality.

Exactly.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7903 times:

Quoting flagon (Reply 9):
Quoting Arniepie (Reply 8):
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 6):
Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 5):
You would have thought they would have learned after the F-111 adventure in trying to make in a 3 branch service plane do all.

They did ok with the F-4 Phantom II.

Bad example, contradicting the JSF's case.
It was originally build as a fighter/interceptor for the US NAVY.
Only later adapted for different tasks, with different services.

mmhh, I am not too sure about that, I wouldn't say designing an aircraft to meet a wide range of requriements from both Navy and Air Force is necessarily a lost battle. This has been done successfully for the Rafale with a high degree of commonality between the navy and the air force versions, whilst covering the whole spectrum of possible missions.
On the contrary adapting an specialised aircraft for other mission types can sometimes be quite painfull.

Interesting you mention the Rafale, another project that turned out too expensive for what it eventually brought to the
table.
I think it is a very fair guess if I would say that they (Dassault) also would've done themselves a lot of favors if they
stayed with the engine used by the early prototype, a GE F404 derivative which was at least equally good compared
with the M88.
It would've made it much cheaper and a lot easier for Dassault to focus more on the rest, the frame, avionics and sensorsuite, undoubtedly saving them a lot of headaches and severely shortening the design and test time needed.
The M version also would've benefitted from all this.
They already knew that further, more powerful, versions of the 404 family where in the pipeline and if need be they
could also use the EJ200 without having to invest in their designcosts.
Now the engine is more a burden when it comes to selling the Rafale, it just doesn't deliver compared with similar engines.
-M88 ; 3.6m x 0.90m @ 900kg delivering 16900lbf thrust in AB
-EJ200; 4.0m x 0.97m @ 989kg delivering 20000lbf thrust in AB (27000lbf possible upgrade)
-F404 ; 3.9m x 0.89m @ 1036kg delivering 17700lbf thrust in AB
-F414 ; 3.9m x 0.89m @ 1110kg delivering 22000lbf thrust in AB also power upgrades to be expected



[edit post]
User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7869 times:

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 11):
Interesting you mention the Rafale, another project that turned out too expensive for what it eventually brought to the
table.

The total programme cost of the Rafale over its life is estimated today is 43.6billions euros for 286 rafales.
This is a total unit programme cost of 152millions euros.

As a comparison:
the total UK contribution to the Typhoon programme cost over the life of the programme has been estimated by the NOA to 37billions GDB for 160 typhoons.
This is a total unit programme cost of 231millions GDP (for the RAF Typhoons). Of these 160 Typhoons 53 T1 will be withdrawn in 2018 as they will be obsolete and too expensive to bring the T3 standard, which will leave the RAF with a mere 107 Typhoons.....by extrapolation you could say that in the mid-term (from 2018 in six years...) the programme unit cost of the RAF Typhoons is 37billions / 107 = 346millions GDP. For information that of the F22 is generally quoted as being around 350million dollars....

The Rafale fullfils all French air force and Navy requirements.
The Typhoon does not cover all UK requirement which forces UK to invest in F35 programme on top of that (2.5 billions dollars invested in development already, plus the cost of procuring the aircraft which realistically will be over 10 billions).

The Rafale will be the only type of fighter in service in french forces.
The UK will have to maintain 2 types of fighters.
The USA three types of fighters.

In the light of this I find the Rafale solution rather economical.....

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 11):
Now the engine is more a burden when it comes to selling the Rafale, it just doesn't deliver compared with similar engines.

One of the reasons Rafale pulled out from Eurofighter was they wanted a plane which empty weight does not exceed 9.5T, so on that basis the M88 was design from day one to deliver 7.5T, which by the way provides the aircraft with a thrust to weight ratio comparable to that of the Typhoon (which is a heavier aircraft) at sea level / empty weight. If the specifications back then were to design a 8T engine the M88 would deliver 8T today. The concept of the design back then was to be pragmatic and to do the job required, not necessarily to show muscles...

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 11):
a GE F404 derivative which was at least equally good compared
with the M88.

The performance data you give in your post says otherwise as the GE (though a very good engine) is not particularly light and would have lead to an aircraft overweight of 200kg, no way that would have been acceptable....

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 11):
Dassault to focus more on the rest, the frame, avionics and sensorsuite

It is not for Dassault to focus on avionics and sensorsuite, that are besides, generally more than satisfactory and combat proven, nor it is for Dassault to focus on the engines.

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 11):
they
could also use the EJ200

If you read the data you posted on this engine you realise that it is significantly bigger (normal, it was designed for the Typhoon) than the M88. That makes me doubt it could actually be integrated into a Rafale airframe, which is already very space limited (like all combat aircraft) and which Dassault wanted as small as possible (Rafale A prototype already was deemed too long and too heavy, the C, B and M versions have reduced in size/weight for that reason).



Stephane
User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7848 times:

I'm fairly sure that a EJ200 and F404/414 would fit in the Rafale frame without too much adjustment.
The higher poweroutput and lower SFC (-10% compared with the F414 and EJ200) would have made
a slight weight increase not really an issue ,I believe.
And it would have made it more attractive for foreign potential customers.

As for the avionics, you might be right, they are more of the shelf items.
The fact remains that the Rafale is generally deemed an expesive alternative for its closest competitors like
the EF Typhoon and the Super Hornet.
Historically the strength of Dassault was more in their ability to deliver a high performance lightweight and
cheap to operate fighter that was technically equivalent to other western fighters, no?

As an aside, I know for a fact that there is a studygroup in the Belgian air component that are studying
a replacement for the F-16's after 2020, the Rafale, NG Gripen and EF are all very much in the running
now that the JSF is deemed a real fiscal uncertain adventure.
Originally a joint venture with the dutch and their F-35 was considered the most natural course of action.
However with the swiss buying the NG Gripen and current economic longterm difficulties the F-35 is loosing
ground rapidly, even becoming very unlikely.
In the summer, at the request of an MP (member of NVA) minister of defence P De Crem got a direct quote from LM
of 115million euro's (@09/11 exchange rate) per plane excl. engines as a naked price, an initial budget of 6.21billion € would be needed to buy a new fleet, not counting spares, engines ,training ,etc...., therefor a hearing has been called to seriously look for alternatives, which seem ever more likely.

Parliamentary questions have started in oktober.
The current F16 have a lifespan of 8000hrs, 2023 or maximum 2025 are considered as the ultimate usefulness
of the F-16 fleet.
I know for a fact that a Swiss type of setup can very well be in the future of our air Force.
A small(20-28) fleet of high performance fighters (RAFALE, EF, F-35,SH) combined with something almost equally
advanced but much cheaper to operate like the NG gripen which can be used for training and active duties flying more
hours per frame than the more expensive fighters.
The extra cost of holding more spares and some extra training facilities (Sim etc..) don't add up against the savings
made by using a substantially cheaper planes.
One thing working against the F-35 is the lack of a 2-seater, for training purposes a 2 seater is deemed
much more effective and economical.



[edit post]
User currently offlinewvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7811 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 6):
They did ok with the F-4 Phantom II.

Not really ask anyone who flew it (I had an uncle that flew 1 in vietnam) the aircraft other than range (talking about the F-4) and the amount of ordinance it could carry was not really a master of anything other than being out manuevred by migs.


User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1853 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7787 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):

Apples to oranges, you're comparing a well-used a/c in need of a centre-barrel replacement to a new a/c showing structural issues.

The point was that they knew the centre-barrel was going to be an issue down the line from the beginning. The situation here is that they are moving to fix a potential future structural issue before it even becomes an issue. Why? Because it is easier and cheaper now to implement the fix on a handful of test aircraft and then roll it out for mass production, than to fix it later when you already have thousands of aircraft already made.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):
They can see it any way they choose and I agree they did not recommend stopping LRIP, they recommended slowing down. Which will push costs up somewhat. Stopping would have put costs up hugely since some of the workforce would be laid off - and who knows how many would come back ? That risk is too big from the p.o.v. of the program manager and DoD.

It won't affect the end result; we are looking at thousands of F-35's being made, not just for the US armed forces, but for foreign customers as well.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):
ndeed fixes are ordered for later planes. What about the sunk investment in the ones flying or limping right now ? Will they get fixed ? These are, theoretically at least, production a/c. My understanding of production is that "this is the finished model" ready for use.

The ones already produced will probably soldier on as test vehicles or in training squadrons under less demanding situations. But in any case, they will be retrofitted with the fixes down the line as they come due for overhaul.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):
But isn't the notion that all these problems will be fixed and F-35 will be the wunderkind of all combat a/c a "broad inference" in itself ?

No, because that is usually the end result; they will resolve the problems and the aircraft will do well in service. If you thought F-35's problems were bad, the F/A-18 when it initially entered service would really frighten you. They were still fixing major flaws years after IOC.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):
Indeed. TFX/F-111 was a fiasco, proving that the one size fits all solution usually but not always, does not work.

The problem with the F-111 program was that they tried to shoehorn a USAF tactical strike bomber into the role of a USN fleet interceptor, when both roles were diametrically opposed from each other, and the USN and USAF heavily disagreed with each other on practically every point. Not the case here; the USAF, USMC, and USN agree on many key performance points.

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 13):
One thing working against the F-35 is the lack of a 2-seater, for training purposes a 2 seater is deemed
much more effective and economical.

Or they can invest in decent simulators and high performance trainers... The F-22 doesn't have a dual seat version, and neither does the A-10. Both seem to work out fine.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3855 posts, RR: 27
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7757 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
The ones already produced will probably soldier on as test vehicles or in training squadrons under less demanding situations.


The summary of your comments in several threads is:
We should accept and keep producing substandard crap, because that is the way we have always done it... We should keep producing substandard planes and assign them to non-demanding roles just to keep the production line moving. Maybe by line 1000 we will have a plane that meets the mission minimums without melting when they kick in afterburners for more than 2.5 minutes or can land vertically more than 6 times. Not sure how many training flights you can get with those constraints.
We should cut the manufacturer slack because this pile of manure has the best PR presentations and woo woo stuff that may not even work but sure sounds good. (the "enemy" is quaking in their boots when they hear about this woo-woo stuff). And you're going to defend the North Pole with it even though the communications system won't work north of the Arctic Circle.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7723 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 16):
And you're going to defend the North Pole with it even though the communications system won't work north of the Arctic Circle.

And you have no idea what you are talking about, again. By the time the F35 enters service with Canada, or shortly after, we will have the SECURE coms we need. Thanks for playing though. The F-35 program is in complexity class that is unique and the program has some serious engineering issues. I'm not doing a pollyanna thing here, but I have a reasonable degree of faith in LM's engineering staff being able to resolve the issues. Most people who are anti-JSF see every issue on the F-35 presented as a program ending flaw. There is no other single aircraft available that comes close to its capabilities and buying aircraft that are approaching obsolescence just because they are available now is a fools game.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3855 posts, RR: 27
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 7706 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 17):
And you have no idea what you are talking about, again. By the time the F35 enters service with Canada, or shortly after, we will have the SECURE coms we need.

Funny you say I don't know what I'm talking about and then validate that the com system isn't there.. but might be shortly after delivery...


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 7695 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
Funny you say I don't know what I'm talking about and then validate that the com system isn't there.. but might be shortly after delivery...

Get over yourself. The CF35 SATCOM capability will be installed on our jets long before the first one flies anywhere near the Arctic circle.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7682 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 6):
They did ok with the F-4 Phantom II.

The F-4 was successful in part because it represented a large change in aircraft design. No longer chasing every last .01 mach they could eek out, but a far more broad performance regime. Big, tough, and flexible are allways good attributes. Oh and cheap.

I think its funny that someone is defending a plane that doesn't even have the TAIL HOOK correctly located. Its only been what 75 years or so since we figured that out? Its not rocket science. Perhaps someone should have even thought to model what happens when the plane's MLG runs over the cable. Since that kinda happens in actual use.

Or that they are not ready on ANY of the roles this aircraft must perform. I kinda liked thier little swipe at its CAS ability in saying they doubt it can ever perform comparable to current inventory.

Its how many billions over budget?
They are reducing the planes taken by 10% while paying the same for the next few years....

When do we start investigating who needs to go to jail for this massive and continous fraud? The F35 sold to the selection committee is nothing like what we see today. Apparently what we see today is not like what we ordered in any way. Since I believe we wanted F35 that could conduction AtA, AtG, CAS, and many other roles.


User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7660 times:

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 13):
The fact remains that the Rafale is generally deemed an expesive alternative for its closest competitors like
the EF Typhoon and the Super Hornet.

I am confused by your comment here, as whilst the Rafale is for sure more expensive than a Super Hornett, it is generally recognised as being substantially cheaper than the Typhoon. I would be interested to know on which data you base your statement.

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 13):
Historically the strength of Dassault was more in their ability to deliver a high performance lightweight and
cheap to operate fighter that was technically equivalent to other western fighters, no?

I don't think so, I think Dassault so far has always had to reputation to deliver light and good products, but at a price significantly above that of american products. Its success in exporting Mirage 3 and Mirage F1 during the cold war was mainly down to the fact that Dassault's products were a good alternative for countries who deliberately did not want to align to the american nor to the soviet block.

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 13):
And it would have made it more attractive for foreign potential customers.

I agree, but the main goal of Rafale was to meet the french forces whilst being an economical alternative, it wasn't designed for the export market like was the F5. Although to be fair it would be silly to say that the french were not hoping to export the plane. Right in the middle of the cold war the market demand back then suggested many export prospects, obviously the end of cold war completely changed this situation and made more and more countries reluctant in spending money in expensive twin engines fighters.



Stephane
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7542 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
The point was that they knew the centre-barrel was going to be an issue down the line from the beginning. The situation here is that they are moving to fix a potential future structural issue before it even becomes an issue. Why? Because it is easier and cheaper now to implement the fix on a handful of test aircraft and then roll it out for mass production, than to fix it later when you already have thousands of aircraft already made.

My understanding (apparently not up to par with yours) regarding the CF centre-barrel problem was that this really only came to light after repeated Arctic sovereingty patrols using the large centreline fuel tank - which I believe McDonnell Douglas did not design the a/c to do.

But your point about "it's easier and cheaper now to implement the fix...":

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ency-reaches-turning-point-366056/

Two fair use quotes:
"The QLR study warned that all 521 production F-35s delivered during the flight test phase could be affected. Lockheed, however, has argued that the F-35 airframe and hardware configuration will be frozen after the fifth lot of low-rate initial production. If the company is right, only 88 F-35s would need the full package of concurrency changes."

521 production a/c delivered during flight test phase ... if they all have serious defects, doesn't this make a mockery out of concurrency as a concept - and, by implicaiton, those who support it ?

Regarding costs to fix the concurrency problems:
"Vice Admiral David Venlet, the head of the F-35 programme, has not released the actual cost figures, but in one December interview he described the concurrency bill as so high it "sucks the wind out of your lungs". "

Well, the head of the program speaking honestly. At least someone is, finally.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7417 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 22):
he described the concurrency bill as so high it "sucks the wind out of your lungs"

I think that this is really the main problem with the F-35. Above beyond program shortcomings and engineering snafus, those problems that surface at flight test phase are proving heinously expensive to address. I doubt the resolution of similar issues with prior legacy fighter programs "sucked the wind" out of management's lungs.

IMHO, cost will ultimately cause procurement figures to be savaged à la F-22 with commitments being significantly reduced by most nations involved.

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7392 times:

Quoting faro (Reply 23):
IMHO, cost will ultimately cause procurement figures to be savaged à la F-22 with commitments being significantly reduced by most nations involved.

Agreed, and the looming major defense spending cuts. IIRC something like 2,400 units are planned for the USAF/USN/USMC. If it gets to 1,500 I'[d be surprised. Mind you, with all the problems, I might not live long enough to see IOC.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
25 Post contains links tommytoyz : http://www.pogo.org/resources/nation...y-evaluation-training-flights.html The abort rate for the CTOL version alone is currently 3 x times higher than
26 L-188 : Tommytoyz...I can't cut and paste on my iPod but Forget the b2/f22 I can think of many tasks the A10 can kick the F35's butt at
27 spudh : Thats the problem, those are 3 specialist airframes dedicated to their role and probably have not a single nut in common bar the nut at the controls.
28 kanban : There is a 4th option.. suspend the line until the bugs are resolved and tested using the test a/c already produced. That would lead to significantly
29 Powerslide : It was the US Congress that forced the services down this path. How many of them will now stand up and take responsibility for these problems? None.
30 faro : Agreed, for better or worse it far too much momentum to it. IMO the cost issue will settle itself F-22-style. Limited resources and increasing costs
31 bennett123 : Problem is that if you drastically cut back production, unit costs rise further, resulting in smaller savings. The other issue, is that less planes me
32 tommytoyz : That is exactly what is going to happen. IMHO. The concurrent production with testing will have been one big waste of money. The argument that the fa
33 rwessel : I'd certainly add the RAH-66 Comanche to the list of cancelations without replacement. Probably the A-12 Avenger II as well. The problem is that if y
34 Powerslide : Alternatives that would only happen in the la-la-land of the US Military. Restart A-10 production? Why not restart P-51 production, hell the Mustang
35 tommytoyz : [quote=Powerslide,reply=34]Alternatives that would only happen in the la-la-land of the US Military. Restart A-10 production? Why not restart P-51 pro
36 faro : In the same perspective, huge complexity and cost increases are no longer inevitable. For example nations like Switzerland are willingly pursuing the
37 flagon : I thought that was to replace the F5? Did I miss something?
38 faro : Yes you're right; don't know why the other contenders (Typhoon, Rafale) gave me the impression that they were seeking Hornet replacements. I wonder w
39 Arniepie : I wouldn't put it past the Swiss to keep operating 2 types next to eachother, they've been doing so succesfully for the last 40 or 50 years, from the
40 XT6Wagon : It would be better than the F35 for CAS.
41 Post contains links Arniepie : It's got the Israelis seriously worried it seems; http://www.worldnewstribune.com/2011...-much-worse-than-we-had-been-told/ Surprised to see also engi
42 rcair1 : This is the same mentality that said "GM was too big to fail." or "[you fill in the blank] is too big to fail". Ultimately, government rescues tend t
43 Arniepie : 100% agreement on this side of the pond, Chances are our politicians are also going to go for the JSF just because the Dutch did so too. Realizing th
44 ThePointblank : Read the article and other like it more closely. Israelis are trying to figure out the most cost effective way to address a short term fighter shortf
45 geezer : Whew ! What a can of worms this is ! After reading all 43 replies, I'm so mixed up I think I'll have to go play free cell for a while so I can "re-gro
46 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Even granting that these early F-16s are licensed produced by SABCA from General Dynamics and not LM, could it be said that Belgium was sold lemons i
47 kanban : Nice comments... I was just reading the F-117 thread thinking how much money we paid for those birds and now they are mothballed, Look at all the oth
48 ThePointblank : The issue is that the more F-35's are built, the cheaper they become in terms of per unit costs and long term maintenance costs per aircraft. It is i
49 HaveBlue : On this point I have to take exception... it is one thing to shoot down a subsonic plane at 70,000'.. quite another at that date in time to be able t
50 Arniepie : Don't know why you use the F-16 as an example, I was clearly referring to its predecessor, the F104, beautiful and spectacular it might be but it was
51 kanban : Since you are so enamored with the plane that there is no room for criticism, let's use a different analogy. Say you wanted a $100,000 sports car and
52 spudh : If you mean the tactic of commonality I agree 100%, but if you're talking about equipment it's more qualified, if people keep building higher buildin
53 Powerslide : This is the biggest problem with this project. It is the first major Western fighter to face scrutiny from the modern internet. I would have loved to
54 ThePointblank : No, you work with other buyers so collectively, we buy 15 cars. You need other parties to also play game. If you stop innovating, others will try con
55 rwessel : If the program does continue, that kind of line halt will cost you plenty when you have to restart the line. The point is not that that this in and o
56 Post contains links connies4ever : Pentagon now proposing to cut 120 production models from the next 5 year purchasing plan: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...%20JSFs:%20Reuters&am
57 ThePointblank : Certainly there is a strong push for budgetary savings right now and this is a convenient target. Really if it was a technical reason then the last L
58 faro : Tough indeed, and very interesting as you remark. In page 11 of the Budget and Economic Outlook 2009-2019 (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01
59 Post contains links connies4ever : I find it very interesting that in this thread you are parsing and interpreting the SecDef's statements and appear to more or less agree with him. Im
60 spudh : To be fair Connie, that was Powerslide, not Pointblank.
61 Post contains links faro : Oh, I'd be willing to give Powerslide the benefit of the doubt; I am sure that he would agree with the following quotation: ""There are few words whi
62 Post contains images connies4ever : Point taken. My mistake.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F35 Program Filled With Problems In All Areas
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...
My Strange, Short Encounter With Buran In Bahrain posted Sun Sep 23 2007 20:41:45 by Birdwatching
Problems In Midwest? posted Mon Jul 16 2007 17:58:38 by Smcmac32msn
B-1b Operation In Odyssey Dawn Help The Program? posted Mon May 30 2011 20:23:39 by 747400sp
RAF Typhoon With Ash Problems. posted Thu Apr 22 2010 10:27:44 by oly720man
What New In Iraq With Helicopters? posted Sat Dec 13 2008 16:54:06 by PJFlysFast
SAAB, Denel In Talks With Embraer (C-390) posted Thu Jan 17 2008 10:36:30 by PPVRA
VH-71 Presidential Helicopter Program In Trouble. posted Tue Nov 6 2007 07:41:30 by USAF336TFS
F-22: All In One? posted Sun Oct 14 2007 15:10:56 by Blackbird
A Trip Back In Time With The Galaxy posted Fri Jun 1 2007 07:44:19 by MCIGuy
Israel In Talks With USA Over F-22 Orders posted Fri Apr 20 2007 13:46:49 by Keesje

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format