JoeCanuck
Topic Author
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:54 am

The F-35 hits another snag as the Pentagon reduces some previously specified capabilities of the aircraft, based on real world test performance. Sustained turn G-loads have been reduced in all three models as well as transonic acceleration rates.

As well, testing has shown significant transonic buffeting, as well as horizontal stabilator materials delamination at high speeds and altitude, forcing a reduction in the aircraft flight envelope until solutions are implemented. More issues with software, the helmet and metal fatigue are also being reported;


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...owers-f-35-performance-bar-381031/

Quote:
The US Department of Defense is lowering the performance bar for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter according to a new report by the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E).

The specifications for all three variants pertaining to transonic acceleration and sustained turn rates have been reduced. Worst hit in terms of acceleration is the US Navy's F-35C carrier-based model.

Lockheed says no, but I can't see how these issues can't affect the timetable for delivery or the price, since they can't say what the fixes are, much less when they'll be done.

Does this mean more delays?
What the...?
 
queb
Posts: 843
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:10 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:08 pm

Performances decreases and price increase. Logical...  



[Edited 2013-01-15 06:15:26]
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:19 pm

This is great news !!   

Another reason to seriously look at other aircraft that are somewhat more relevant to Canada's actual needs. One thing the F-35 cheerleaders keep avoiding is the real basis for the aircraft: offensive, deep-strike attacks against some presumed 'enemy' - whatever that means in today's world. LockMart have consistently touted it as an interceptor and a fighter. History has shown, however, that scabbing on additional tasks to a given airframe usually results in 2nd rate performance in those, and possibly degraded performance in the originally intended role. Weight growth being an important component.

Every reason to believe that this thing may become the most expensive turkey in history. But, from a political standpoint (and all large military programs live or die on political support, not military performance) it's too late to stop now. It will get deployed. And fixed. And fixed again. Give LockMart enough corporate welfare I am quite sure they'll tell you they can fix anything.

This makes my day ...
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:40 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
Does this mean more delays?

It means that the flight test program is doing what it is supposed to be doing... finding flaws that need to be fixed before it hits service.


I would think downgrading the the flight envelope until things are fixed is a solution to keep the program on time for now.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:27 pm

Oh god the world is ending..

Quote:
"The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35C, reducing turn performance from 5.1 to 5.0 sustained g's and increasing the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by at least 43 seconds," reads the report prepared by J Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's DOT&E. "These changes were due to the results of air vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations." Sustained turning performance for the F-35B is being reduced from 5G to 4.5G while the F-35A sinks from 5.3G to 4.6G according to the report.

 

Glad the testing phase is working how it should.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:35 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 4):
Glad the testing phase is working how it should.

Pity about the design and development phases, the costing phases and everything else Lockheed has done thus far...
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:27 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 5):
Pity about the design and development phases, the costing phases and everything else Lockheed has done thus far...

We should stop developing new technologies when they become too expensive and complex. Lets all live in caves and move around in horse carriages. Simple, cheap and safe.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:47 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 6):
We should stop developing new technologies when they become too expensive and complex. Lets all live in caves and move around in horse carriages. Simple, cheap and safe.

Meh, the "lets take this to the extreme" response...

How about we talk about a sensible compromise and hold companies to budgets and timescales? Stop thinking "lets develop the technology while we go, it will all work out in the end"?

Do we really need to be discovering issues like these 12 years in?
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:05 pm

Am I reading this correct.. block 1 software is only 80% complete, and they've mushed on with two supposedly more advanced versions without resolving the problems of the first?

then there is another structural cracking problem.. I think it's time for a manufacturing break until they finish designing and testing the planes already out there.

singed elevators? didn't we have singed flaps as well.. or are they testing material flammability? If it's the stealth coating burning off, there goes any surprise.

If the trend continues we'll have a sub sonic plane limited to 1.5 G turns and requiring a P-8 to guide it to it's target.   
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:38 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 7):
Do we really need to be discovering issues like these 12 years in?
Quoting kanban (Reply 8):
If the trend continues we'll have a sub sonic plane limited to 1.5 G turns and requiring a P-8 to guide it to it's target.

   I applaud you both, gentlemen. Spot on. Meeting the spec/timeframe has never been LockMart's intention here. It's about screwing taxpayers all over the world for as many    as possible.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:55 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9):
It's about screwing taxpayers all over the world for as many    as possible.

This thread just got better. I'll go get my tinfoil hat.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:08 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 10):
This thread just got better. I'll go get my tinfoil hat.

        

In the real world contractors normally pay penalties when they can't meet spec or sked.
They don't get rewarded with more cash.
I don't see why LockMart shouldn't be held to the same standard here.

And to think in 1984 I was poised to take a job in Sunnyvale, California, with ..... Lockheed.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
mffoda
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:22 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 10):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9):
It's about screwing taxpayers all over the world for as many    as possible.

This thread just got better.

How come countries keep feeding money to this program? It must be obvious that the Raptor and other LM programs have NEVER produced an advanced aircraft or delivered the bang for the "Buck" that the customer ordered???

" I'll go get my tinfoil hat."

Me Too, Only, mine is a modified Titanium Alloy / Element Zero model... On a side note? Expect new F35 orders soon...  
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
Max Q
Posts: 5629
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:00 am

What a joke this thing is.


Time to kill the program.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:20 am

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 11):
In the real world contractors normally pay penalties when they can't meet spec or sked.
They don't get rewarded with more cash.
I don't see why LockMart shouldn't be held to the same standard here.

And to think in 1984 I was poised to take a job in Sunnyvale, California, with ..... Lockheed.

You mean like McDD when the F-15 failed to hit the original target speed of Mach 2 armed? Wait, that never happened, the Pentagon just revised the specs.

Or when Boeing failed to hit a weight specification of 30,000 pounds empty weight on the F/A-18E/F, or when severe wing-drop problems occured that defied resolution, despite the use of every aerodynamic analytical tool available? Not to mention the Super Hornet did not meet a sustained turn rate, maneuvering, and acceleration specification. They just revised the specs on that by declaring that speed, acceleration and sustained turn rate were not, and had never been, Key Performance Parameters for the Super Hornet.

The F-35 transonic acceleration specifications were written based on clean-configuration F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet fighter. But unlike the Hornet or the F-16, the F-35 has the same configuration unloaded as it does loaded with weapons and fuel. When an F/A-18 or F-16 is encumbered with weapons, pylons and fuel tanks, those jets are robbed of much of their performance.

Having said that, similarly configured F-35As, Bs and Cs have significantly better transonic acceleration than does the Super Hornet - even with the changes.

My entire point was that the previous generation fighters has been successful despite its much-discussed warts. There is no reason to believe the F-35 will not also be successful. Pure aerodynamic performance is always nice to have, but it isn't be any means the sole determinant of fighter effectiveness.

Quoting kanban (Reply 8):
then there is another structural cracking problem.. I think it's time for a manufacturing break until they finish designing and testing the planes already out there.

singed elevators? didn't we have singed flaps as well.. or are they testing material flammability? If it's the stealth coating burning off, there goes any surprise.

So what? We have initial production Super Hornets that were life-limited at ~1,500 hours initially, until they received structural mods that gave them the full 6,000 hour service life.

An interesting 'study' is to go back through each of the Annual Reports and read the report sections on Super Hornet. Almost like public service announcements from CHINFO or Boeing compared to our most recent 18-page tome on F-35. Also on SH, they broke out the AESA development from the air vehicle, report-wise, and took a long time to get around saying how bad APG-79 was after having said how good it was before they actually tested it. (Failed OT miserably and has taken years to fix it).
 
JohnM
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:45 am

Ok I have it now. LockMart is bad, but the "other" guys are as bad if not worse.....

I say once LockMart gets the C-5M figured out, they can press on with the fancy pointy airplanes.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:26 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 14):
You mean like McDD when the F-15 failed to hit the original target speed of Mach 2 armed? Wait, that never happened, the Pentagon just revised the specs.

Or when Boeing failed to hit a weight specification of 30,000 pounds empty weight on the F/A-18E/F, or when severe wing-drop problems occured that defied resolution, despite the use of every aerodynamic analytical tool available? Not to mention the Super Hornet did not meet a sustained turn rate, maneuvering, and acceleration specification. They just revised the specs on that by declaring that speed, acceleration and sustained turn rate were not, and had never been, Key Performance Parameters for the Super Hornet.

And they should have penalised at that point. Moving the goalposts when you find out your product can't do what you publicly said it would do is just lying by another name. I will say in Boeing's defense that, w.r.t. the 787 delays, they did go way out of their way to offer compensation to the customers. In that, at least, they were honourable. And they used their own $$ to do this, they didn't put a hand out to JAL, ANA, AC, etc., and say "We need more $$". But that's exactly what happens with defense programs.

Quoting JohnM (Reply 15):
I say once LockMart gets the C-5M figured out, they can press on with the fancy pointy airplanes.

Aye to that. How many in service now ? Three, maybe ?
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:42 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 14):
My entire point

we read your point thread after thread and it appears to be -- because other programs had problems that entailed huge expenses to correct, after 12 years of development, we should accept a shoddy product from an incompetent manufacturer and gladly pay double the procurement price to extensively modify and correct the deficiencies to meet substantially downward readjusted criteria. Your point has been not to accept this plane is in trouble, but to spend pages rehashing faults of previous planes as justification for incompetent design and manufacturing.

Yes maybe after 16 major mods and 500 prototypes the plane might meet some standards.. but read the article.. things are not improving.. they're stagnant!!!


Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 14):
singed elevators? didn't we have singed flaps as well.. or are they testing material flammability? If it's the stealth coating burning off, there goes any surprise.

So what?

So What? Tell me that all fighters are designed to light their tail feathers on fire.... Had LM not figured out the exhaust pattern before sticking stuff into it?

Also please remember the Super Hornet was designed not by Boeing but by MD...
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:21 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 6):
We should stop developing new technologies when they become too expensive and complex. Lets all live in caves and move around in horse carriages. Simple, cheap and safe.

Well actually most wars nowadays are against opponents that do live in caves and move on horses, dromedaries, the occasional pick up truck or city bus...
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:13 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 18):
Well actually most wars nowadays are against opponents that do live in caves and move on horses, dromedaries, the occasional pick up truck or city bus...

You are right lets risk the lives of western troops, whose lives are more valuable, just to save a buck. The western world doesn't tolerate casualties. I know there are people out there who like to cut every possible corner, thankfully those people don't have any say in actual operations.

Quoting kanban (Reply 17):
Also please remember the Super Hornet was designed not by Boeing but by MD...

We all know how Boeing failed miserably vs. LM in the 5th gen JSF competition. To think that the whale would've done better is a joke at best.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:41 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 19):
We all know how Boeing failed miserably vs. LM in the 5th gen JSF competition.

that is probably one of the few things we might agree on...however had they won there would have been fewer problems in meeting specs. Thanks for the diversion, but that is not the issue now.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 9869
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:16 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 19):
whose lives are more valuable

More valuable than whose?
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:36 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 19):
You are right lets risk the lives of western troops, whose lives are more valuable, just to save a buck

To date, 3256 US, UK and international troops have been killed by enemy action in Afghanistan.

How many of those were crewing aircraft that were shot down by enemy action? 8. All helicopters.

I don't see tens of billions of dollars on the F-35 is going to change that situation much.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:22 am

Quoting moo (Reply 7):
Do we really need to be discovering issues like these 12 years in?

Six (6) years in...not twelve.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:42 am

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 16):
And they should have penalised at that point. Moving the goalposts when you find out your product can't do what you publicly said it would do is just lying by another name. I will say in Boeing's defense that, w.r.t. the 787 delays, they did go way out of their way to offer compensation to the customers. In that, at least, they were honourable. And they used their own $$ to do this, they didn't put a hand out to JAL, ANA, AC, etc., and say "We need more $$". But that's exactly what happens with defense programs.

Or the goal posts weren't realistic; for example, the design spec of the F-35 for all variants would have meant that the the F-35 would have better transonic maneuverability than anything other than F-22, and be more maneuverable than any US-developed fighter available.

Guess what? The OTE report is MEANT to point out the problems during development a new system so they can go back and review the specifications and see if it can be made to work. If you demand perfection from the beginning, any future system would be stuck in development hell.

And Boeing's just as bad with development; it's just not only did Boeing miss targets, they missed targets by a mile. And I will point out that the goal posts were moved for the 787; if you compared the initially released specifications to the specifications of the current 787, the current 787 would be grossly overweight.

Also, initial prices of the 787-8 was set at $120 million back in 2004; by 2007, it ballooned to $157 million, and today's list price of a 787-8 is $206.8 million.

[Edited 2013-01-16 02:00:49]
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:20 am

Quoting checksixx (Reply 23):
Six (6) years in...not twelve.

Where do you get that from?

The contract with Lockheed was signed on the 26th of October 2001. I'm not sure why you think the 5 years prior to the first flight are inconsequential...
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:23 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Also, initial prices of the 787-8 was set at $120 million back in 2004; by 2007, it ballooned to $157 million, and today's list price of a 787-8 is $206.8 million.

Todays 787 list price may be $206.8Million, but almost all customers who have put down a deposit and ordered the aircraft prior to today won't be paying that - Boeing gets an escalator calculation for inflation and adjustments, but not basic cost rises. In other words, Boeing gets to eat the extra.

Lockheed gets to adjust the basic price of the airframe for all customers.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:50 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Or the goal posts weren't realistic; for example, the design spec of the F-35 for all variants would have meant that the the F-35 would have better transonic maneuverability than anything other than F-22, and be more maneuverable than any US-developed fighter available.

Doesn't matter. LM agreed to these goalposts at contract signing, therefore they are locked in. Contracts can be renegogiated, but that has to be voluntary for both parties.


Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Also, initial prices of the 787-8 was set at $120 million back in 2004; by 2007, it ballooned to $157 million, and today's list price of a 787-8 is $206.8 million.

Almost all, if not all, commercial aircraft contracts have cost escalator clauses to account for inflation. Furthermore, most airlines, particularly those making large-ish ordrs, never pay list. AC, for example, paid about 30% of list for their E-jets. It was a no-brainer although the CRJ-900s have better CASM. But Embraer were willing to take some short term pain for entry into North America with a major carrier.

Apparently military contractors (and certain procurement officials) are comfortable with continuing the fiction that 'list' prices as indicated at contract signing are what is actually going to be paid. Which it is not.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:18 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 21):
More valuable than whose?

Enemy, Taliban, whomever we are fighting.

Quoting moo (Reply 22):
I don't see tens of billions of dollars on the F-35 is going to change that situation much.

That is the point. Having the best equipment allows pilots to stay out of harms way.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7651
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:51 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 6):
We should stop developing new technologies when they become too expensive and complex.

Yes, we should. Otherwise we will lose our security.

The Pentagon's #1 security worry is not military defeat of the USA. The USSR did not suffer a total military defeat. Their military was good. But it was financially unsustainable. Financial security is the Pentagon's #1 worry. Because it is their greatest weakness in terms of performance vs. enemies.

Ironically, the guys in Afghanistan who don't wear shoes perceived this weakness, and as a result, their strategy was to lie low until the USA financially exhausts itself. 10 years is nothing to them. Just wait for the Americans to overspend, and then resume.
Well, this is just one of my tangents. Cheers from the depths of the internet.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 9869
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:11 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 28):

Enemy, Taliban, whomever we are fighting.

What an arrogant comment.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:29 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
And I will point out that the goal posts were moved for the 787

Nice try at deflection.. this thread is not about Commercial programs.. it's about Military Programs .. The two are separate and distinct companies within Boeing. Now how about staying on subject without pedantic rants or the mods will close this thread down as well.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:36 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 30):
What an arrogant comment.

I don't give those guys any justification for being human beings.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 9869
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:07 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 32):
I don't give those guys any justification for being human beings.

They are just as human as you and I, just because you don't share their beliefs doesn't make them any less human or there lives worth any less than yours.
 
flyingturtle
Posts: 4590
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:34 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 32):

They also fight for something. Therefore, have some respect.

Just because their goals differ does not make them less human.


David
Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13761
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:41 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
Lockheed says no, but I can't see how these issues can't affect the timetable for delivery or the price, since they can't say what the fixes are, much less when they'll be done.

Does this mean more delays?

I think it just means the problems will be pencil-whipped.

As in Watergate, follow the money.

It gets delayed when the money gets delayed.

Quoting moo (Reply 7):
How about we talk about a sensible compromise and hold companies to budgets and timescales?
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 16):
I will say in Boeing's defense that, w.r.t. the 787 delays, they did go way out of their way to offer compensation to the customers.

Interestingly enough, Boeing's defense side did pay serious penalties to Australia for Wedgetail, yet somehow we as US taxpayers don't get the same treatment.

BTW please don't tell me the Wedgetail was low tech yada yada, it's antenna electronics and aerodynamics are state of the art, and the amount of system integration involved in the entire product is also state of the art.

Bottom line: we as US taxpayers are getting screwed.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 34):
They also fight for something. Therefore, have some respect.

They fight for some extremely misguided things, especially with respect to their treatment of females.

Nazi solders also fought for something too, part of which was the idea that Jews were the source of all their problems.

So to me there needs to be a basic acknowledgement of humanity, but respect is a step beyond that.

Of course if we held others in respect and that respect was mutual, there would be a way to work problems out using non-military means.

Going to war with someone is the ultimate form of disrespect.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:00 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 35):
They fight for some extremely misguided things, especially with respect to their treatment of females.

Being Devil's advocate to some degree here, but wouldn't the Talibs make the same statement about the west ? Seems to me their world view w.r.t. women is that they should be kept ignorant, subservient, and largely at home. That historically was the fact in what we call the west for quite a long time.

However, risking thread drift here.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:46 pm

ThePointblank:

What you fail to appreciate in the design problems of all the other aircraft you mentioned is:

They were all far better than anything in service, even with the downgrades.

That is not the case for the F35. It offer less of everything, as now promised, except low observability. And now, it will be even less capable. The problems with the F35 are not marginal. 4,000lbs of bombs per míssion for the F35? That is not an improvement over existing fighters, like the F15 was far superior at the time over what was flying at the time.

And the Super Hornet carries more and goes farther for little extra money than the regular Hornet, even with the downgrades. Those were marginal issues. But the F35 issues, when taken in totality, not one by one in isolation, are not marginal. It becomes clear it is a turkey and getting more expensive and more delayed by the day it seems. I was downgraded years ago from stealthy to low observable.

And it's not advanced technology that is the main problem, it's poor management most and foremost. Underestimating the amount of time (by years) the software would take to write and test is just the beginning, much less everything else. It should have been easy math to calculate this like, well we need about x million lines of code, which takes x programers x amount of time to write, and then more time to patch the bugs and fix errors, and viola, we have a realistic timeline and cost factor. But noooo. And it seems this bungling has gone on in many departments, including testing and design.

Or we can just assume LM was lying and Department of Defense folk are too incompetent know it and too incompetent to oversee such large industrial project. After all, the generals are war fighters, not MBA grads with specialties in finance, production and development.

And just because a lot of money has been spent, does not mean anything. You can spend a fortune digging a hole in the ground.

[Edited 2013-01-18 09:01:10]
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:11 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
After all, the generals are war fighters, not MBA grads with specialties in finance, production and development.

In fairness, a lot of Pentagon staff (not necessarily flag officers) ARE MBA grads. Crap, I've been a scientist/engineer for the most part of my career, but I also took the time to get a MA in business administration. Hard work, but I did it.

[Edited 2013-01-18 09:15:06]
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:30 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
That is not the case for the F35. It offer less of everything, as now promised, except low observability. And now, it will be even less capable.

Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:28 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 39):
Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.

Why do you keep doing it then?

Back on topic - is the F-35 really worth the $100Billion+ that's being pumped into it? IMHO, no, not for what it's becoming.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:15 pm

the last thread was closed because two people not only couldn't let an issue rest after stating their views, but continued to flamebait with pages of rehashed and irrelevant arguments.

We accept those two will never agree and hope they will as well, so let's try not to provoke another thread closure.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:54 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 40):
Back on topic - is the F-35 really worth the $100Billion+ that's being pumped into it? IMHO, no, not for what it's becoming.

Lets kill it now and start over. Then once they figure everything out they'll end up spending another 100billion. Great idea....
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:54 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
That is not the case for the F35. It offer less of everything, as now promised, except low observability. And now, it will be even less capable. The problems with the F35 are not marginal. 4,000lbs of bombs per míssion for the F35? That is not an improvement over existing fighters, like the F15 was far superior at the time over what was flying at the time.

Actually, F-35 will carry 15,000lb of ordinance armed wall to wall with external ordinance in a similar configuration to existing fighters. If LO is needed, only 4,000lb can be carried. Big difference, as you are comparing apples to oranges. Use the same metric; on a similar mission A can do X, while B can do Y, both under circumstances 1, 2, and 3. Then you will have a realistic comparison, otherwise, any other attempt at comparing specs is utterly and totally useless without the proper context.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
And the Super Hornet carries more and goes farther for little extra money than the regular Hornet, even with the downgrades. Those were marginal issues. But the F35 issues, when taken in totality, not one by one in isolation, are not marginal. It becomes clear it is a turkey and getting more expensive and more delayed by the day it seems. I was downgraded years ago from stealthy to low observable.

However, the Super Hornet I will point out, never met it's design specs, and in many other metrics, the Super Hornet was an inferior aircraft to the original Hornet, such as acceleration, and maneuverability.


Back to topic on the report:

Quoting kanban (Reply 8):
then there is another structural cracking problem.. I think it's time for a manufacturing break until they finish designing and testing the planes already out there.

The issue with cracking with the bulkhead flange on the underside of the fuselage during a 7,000-hour inspection, is well on its way to being fixed. Lockheed has found and implemented a solution with a minor single digit weight impact and expects to resume tests shortly. The F-35B has had virtually no weight growth for the past 30 months; in fact, the weight margin on that variant has increased by better than 100lbs to more than 400lbs, up from about 300lbs. Assuming that if everything works out as hoped, that margin should continue to increase if there is no further weight growth.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
horizontal stabilator materials delamination at high speeds and altitude, forcing a reduction in the aircraft flight envelope until solutions are implemented

Per Lockheed Martin, the fix is being tested. Flight testing and analysis are complete on the F-35A and new coatings are already being implemented on that model, which should solve the problem. The same testing is underway on the B and C models. But those modifications will not be retrofitted to the existing training aircraft until they go into their regular scheduled maintenance cycles.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
testing has shown significant transonic buffeting

The problem, which manifests itself in the form of uncommanded rolls, occurs at high subsonic speeds at high angles of attack-basically when the aircraft is turning at high altitudes. On the F-35A and F-35B, the company has reduced that flight characteristic to "acceptable levels" by adjusting the flight control schedule software. Lockheed is working on implementing similar fixes on the F-35C, but there is a possibility that wing spoilers that were built into that model as a contingency might be needed. And it is not the first time transonic buffeting is a concern; the F-14 had significant issues with it during its testing. In the case of the F-14, they just ignored the problem altogether.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:54 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 42):

Do we need to start over? Do we need to do anything for another decade?

The F-22 and the F-35 were born in the cold war, thre hasn't been a point in the past 20 years that they have been needed - we suppressed Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Serbia, Kosovo and a lot of other places without them. Israel has fought numerous conflicts without them.

If you look at the need, the need no longer supports the F-35.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13761
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:31 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 36):
Being Devil's advocate to some degree here, but wouldn't the Talibs make the same statement about the west ? Seems to me their world view w.r.t. women is that they should be kept ignorant, subservient, and largely at home. That historically was the fact in what we call the west for quite a long time.

So was slavery, etc. The point was about respecting combatants, but for me it's hard to respect those who think someone should be denied an education and forced into certain roles just because of their anatomy.

Quoting moo (Reply 44):
If you look at the need, the need no longer supports the F-35.

LM needs its profit. F-35 clearly shows that to be the paramount interest.

The defense industry has an inertia all its own. We're replacing tankers with decades of airframe life in them. We're already hearing calls for a new manned bomber just because it's on someone's power-point slides somewhere, and because the defense industry needs another project to pile the pork onto. We built a fleet of B1s after Carter said we did not need them yet Reagan did, and many sit unused because the spare parts budget gets raided to fund the new toys.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:55 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 45):
So was slavery, etc. The point was about respecting combatants, but for me it's hard to respect those who think someone should be denied an education and forced into certain roles just because of their anatomy.

Out of interest, and read nothing into this, but what is your opinion of the opposing sides of the American War of Independence and American Civil Wars, some persons of which denied not only an education and not only forced roles upon certain persons because of their anatomy, but a whole lot more because of a whole lot less of a difference...?

Only this morning I was reading about the Mormon decree of extermination...

There's a lot in US history that is forgotten about.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:12 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 43):
The problem, which manifests itself in the form of uncommanded rolls, occurs at high subsonic speeds at high angles of attack-basically when the aircraft is turning at high altitudes.

Mach dependent, high speed critical Angle of Attack can occur at any altitude.

I think perhaps the real problem is that the F35, being a low observable design, can't just have vortexes or flying surfaces added to fix these issues found in testing without affecting radar cross section. I assume, this is one reason, why the aerodynamic and structural issues are much harder to resolve than if the designers did not have to worry about that. And perhaps why it has been taking so long to fix these issues.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2154
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:50 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 20):
however had they won there would have been fewer problems in meeting specs.

Don't know anything about meeting specs, but I'm pretty sure the wings, although not pretty, would have been awesome structurally.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
And Boeing's just as bad with development; it's just not only did Boeing miss targets, they missed targets by a mile.

Don't know about missing target, but the technology Boeing put on the table was all proven - including vertical lift using the AV-8 principle. Structural manufacturing technology from the F-22 and B1. The Boeing bird was not as sexy and did not have the higher performance. But the technology was more or less proven.

Many of the people who were on the JSF proposal came over to P-8. If the performance of the P-8 program is any indicator, the performance of the JSF would probably be not as bad either. Also note that many of the folks on the JSF proposal went to help solve the 787 wing root issue.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 35):

Interestingly enough, Boeing's defense side did pay serious penalties to Australia for Wedgetail

Wedgetail was sold as a pure commercial buy with all the safeguard for the Australian government. Boeing took all the risk. Of course now the US government can buy some now and not have to suffer the development stages. Cost however will be much higher than what the Australian or even the Korean paid . . . unless of course if you buy in bulk.  

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs

Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:36 am

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 48):
Don't know about missing target, but the technology Boeing put on the table was all proven - including vertical lift using the AV-8 principle. Structural manufacturing technology from the F-22 and B1. The Boeing bird was not as sexy and did not have the higher performance. But the technology was more or less proven.

Except for the fact that when it came to the demonstration of VTOL flight, the Boeing X-32 could not demonstrate vertical flight in a satisfactory format or demonstrate that the design has sufficient growth potential, not to mention that Boeing proposal required substantial redesign.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 48):
Many of the people who were on the JSF proposal came over to P-8. If the performance of the P-8 program is any indicator, the performance of the JSF would probably be not as bad either. Also note that many of the folks on the JSF proposal went to help solve the 787 wing root issue.

The P-8 is essentially a COTS aircraft fitted with existing hardware (a Boeing 737 combined with the sensors and systems from later blocks of the P-3 Orion). Essentially, there was no major development required for the P-8, only system integration.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests