Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
Ozair
Posts: 4931
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Wed May 21, 2014 10:47 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 46):
It's always interesting that when presented if F-35 manufacturing/design/performance shortcomings, the response is a list of other planes that had problems initially as if that makes the condition acceptable.

What those examples prove is that F-35 development is normal. Frankly, the flight test period for the F-35 has actually gone very smoothly.

Quoting kanban (Reply 46):
For the amount of money going into this program, the short falls in deliver are unacceptable, and are compounded by LM's continued production of substandard vehicles.

The monetary investment in the F-35 is comparatively no greater than that invested in previous fighter development programs. The ~390 Billion looks big because it includes a production run of 2400 aircraft with inflation adjusted over the expected length of the program.

What I find amusing is that you hold LM to a higher standard than other manufacturers. They are a defence contractor, just like Boeing, NG, Raytheon, EADS etc. All employ lobbyists, all garner political influence, all are out for as much business as they can get. The sector needs reform, but reform that is consistent across all contractors.

Quoting kanban (Reply 46):
If anything it will be the drying up of funding that will eventually kill the program with only about 30% of the envisioned fleet produced regardless of what the military brass are told to say.

What is the result of a drying up of funding?

In this case it may mean less F-35 orders. It also means no additional tactical aircraft for any of the services. If you can't afford to buy the F-35 which is coming off the production line in such numbers that it is priced lower than existing 4 & 4.5G aircraft then you can't buy anything. No additional F-15s, no more F-16s, no more SH. Therefore as aircraft reach their service hour limits they get retired and US tactical fighter numbers shrink.

The interesting point is that once a US fighter aircraft reaches full rate production history shows us it is typically purchased in greater numbers than planned. F-15, F-16, F-18, SH were all purchased in greater numbers than originally planned. F-22 is the sole case of lesser numbers and there are clear reasons for that.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Wed May 21, 2014 11:12 pm

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 47):

That's a little misleading. Iran bombed Osirik 2 years prior with F-4s with 75% of their iron bombs hitting too. Both were employing dive tactics. If I popped up an F-16 right over Osirak and went 100 ft to 10,000ft and then nosedived I too would be 90% accurate. The point is not to fly a suicide trajectory. Try that against a S300 and find out what happens.

The Israeli's hit with 14 out of 16 bombs dropped directly on the containment dome with dumb bombs. The only other solution available to the Israeli's if they could not carry out the attack with conventional munitions was to use guided bombs, such as Paveway, Walleye, and GBU-15.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 47):
The point is not to fly a suicide trajectory. Try that against a S300 and find out what happens.

And that's exactly what the Israeli's did. One of the reasons they didn't use precision guided bombs was because they would have been forced to fly at medium altitude during the attack in an orbit to guide whatever PGM they elected to use.

Quoting kanban (Reply 46):
It's always interesting that when presented if F-35 manufacturing/design/performance shortcomings, the response is a list of other planes that had problems initially as if that makes the condition acceptable.

Development problems aren't new. EVERY fighter developed by everyone has had some issues with development. Fighters have been into service with severe shortcomings or flaws that were widely known by practically every user in the world. This is why we do development testing and evaluation; to find these flaws and fix them! The F-35 is the most tested aircraft going into service today.

In fact, here's another one, which to you would be an interesting train wreck of a program:

- Aircraft fundamentally flawed with cracks appearing in brand new aircraft and the department stopping delivery as a result
- Capital projects like buildings covered under O&M
- Weapons bought under separate projects with bigger tickets than the prime vehicle
- Department paying sooner than it had to and thus losing interest on money that could have been sitting in their bank
- Life Cycle costs debatable
- Treasury Board had not fully funded the project

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/En...ish/parl_oag_198711_09_e_4217.html

Quoting kanban (Reply 46):
For the amount of money going into this program, the short falls in deliver are unacceptable, and are compounded by LM's continued production of substandard vehicles. Even corrections are carefully couched in terms of "estimated" incorporation dates which will have to be followed by extensive testing and in many cases extensive retrofit of the hangar queens.

Concurrency is not the boogieman people and politicians make it out to be. Concurrency is nothing new, and warplanes don't spring fully formed/armed from the head of Zeus. That LM and the DoD gave this fact-of-life a name and actually planned for it accordingly doesn't really change things much.

The takeaway IS that we fielded needed technology as fast as possible knowing we’d learn something new, or possibly fall short (without fear), or learn we needed different or just ‘better’ technology. We then incorporated those lessons learned to get the systems we needed. Most of the time those precursor aircraft had limited front-line service lives and were seconded or scrapped less than a decade after they were built.

Compare that approach with today’s approach; the one used for the F-35. A limited number of aircraft have been produced, with the intention of making them all (or nearly all) meet the baseline standard (Block 3) through subsequent modification. There will probably be around 200 aircraft (or fewer) produced before the first Block 3 plane is rolled out, far less than 10% of the currently planned total production run, and all but the most early of those jets will be upgraded to baseline standard via mostly software/component updates.

The USAF has a massive list of aircraft that in the past had some form of concurrency in effect:

http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100526-027.pdf

Quote:
1944:
The AAF definitively endorsed the P-80 on 4 April (2 months ahead of the XP-80A's first flight) with a LC [letter contract] that introduced the first production contract. This contract, as approved in December, called for two lots of P-80s (500 in each). Delivery of the first 500 was to be completed by the end of 1945; …

On 7 January North American presented a bold design based on the successful P-51. This design promised range, reliability, and less pilot fatigue (the two pilots could spell one another). The AAF endorsed it at once. In fact, a February letter contract to construct and test three experimental P-82s gave way in the same month to an order for 500 productions…

1945:
[In January] The AAF order covered 100 service test and production P-84 [ later redesignated F-84] airplanes-25 of the former and 75 of the latter. This was subsequently decreased to 15 service test articles, which were redesignated YP-84As. The production articles were correspondingly increased from 75 to 85 and redesignated P-84Bs. [The P-84 ‘mockup’ was viewed by the AAF for the first time the next month]

1946:
[20 December] Although the prototypes were still under construction, a production order was released. Unit cost of the first 33 P-86s [ later redesignated F-86] authorized for procurement was set at $438,999.00—more than twice the aircraft's eventual price.

1949:
Funds released by President Harry S. Truman in January 1949 enabled the Air Force to execute, during May of that year, a cost plus-a-fixed-fee contract amounting to some $48 million, excluding a fixed-fee of almost $3 million. The estimated costs stipulated in the contract covered modification of the second XF-89 (YF-89) and fabrication of the first 48 production aircraft (F-89As). [Note: the first XF-89 had severe development problems, flew little and was lost shortly after delivery of the second prototype]…

1951/52:
[October 1951] The Air Force Council pressed for the development of revised Sabre 45 [F-100]. This decision ran counter to the belief of key development personnel that the aircraft would not meet the simplicity and cost requirements, basic to a day fighter. To obtain quickly a new fighter that would substantially surpass the F-86, the Air Force Council also agreed with the Aircraft and Weapons Board's recommendations to buy it in quantity prior to flight-testing, even though this ran the risk of extensive modifications in the future…

Initial Contract Date 3 January 1952 The Air Force issued a letter contract for two F-100A prototypes…

First Contract for Production 11 February 1952 The Air Force rushed through a second letter contract to procure 23 F-100As with fiscal year 1952 funds...

Second Production Contract August 1952 Having found the revised mockup basically satisfactory, the Air Force directed procurement of 250 additional F-100As. 1953: The LCs, previously awarded to Convair, were superseded by a definitive contract. This contract, still based on the Cook-Craigie production plan, did not affect the number of aircraft initially ordered. Out of the 42 aircraft under procurement, several were earmarked for testing and two (F-102A prototypes) were scheduled for flight in October and December 1953, respectively...

1953:
The F-101 and F-102 which employed the Cook-Craigie approach (no prototypes) in the pursuit of trying to mature technology before committing to LARGE production quantities, while still committing to volume production as soon as possible. Subsequent jets of the original type were purchased in volume, in evolved forms as a result of lessons learned in operation and test.

How about the number of aircraft bought before the definitive type was fielded?
F-80C: 700+
F-84F: 2000+
F-86F: 900+
F-94C: 400+
F-100F: 1900+
F-4E: 1300+
F-16 Block 30: 1800+

In fact, some aircraft could have benefited fro ADDITIONAL concurrency because of the very high rate of accidents, like the F-100 Super Sabre. In the first 100,000 hours of service, there were 95 major accidents with 6 fatalities. Later aircraft were improved, but the USAF still lost a quarter of the F-100 fleet in crashes.

FYI, according to this report by a team of analysts from Center for Naval Analysis in the Defense concurrency isn't a bad thing:
http://www.dau.mil/pubscats/ATL%20Do...ep-Oct10/Birchler%20sept-oct10.pdf

Quote:
Our results, based on examining 28 programs across all Services, are very similar to those of the Congressional Budget Office and RAND studies with one surprising exception: While from a purely statistical point of view we found that the relationship between both planned and actual concurrency and cost growth was very weak, in both cases, there seems to be a “sweet spot” of about 30 percent concurrency. That is, programs that plan on spending 30 percent of RDT&E funds while concurrently spending procurement funds actually experience the lowest average cost growth. Similarly, those programs that actually do spend about 30 percent of RDT&E funds while concurrently spending procurement dollars, even when not originally planned, also experience lower cost growth. Furthermore, programs with planned or actual levels of concurrency below 30 percent experienced higher cost growth than those with higher levels of concurrency. In other words, lower levels of planned or actual concurrency were actually worse than higher levels of concurrency. This is the complete opposite of what many in the acquisition community believe. We speculate that lower levels of concurrency may expose the program to higher levels of external changes.

Note what I've bolded. The report says, in fact, less concurrency is really bad; programs with low levels of concurrency experience higher rates of cost growth compared to similar programs with more concurrency.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Thu May 22, 2014 12:04 am

My point remains that instead of answering the points identified, the answer given is so what, all programs have problems. That is pure avoidance. Military planes are frequently so manipulated by congress that it is a wonder they fly, however with this plane it continuously appears that LM's design is significantly behind the curve. Is substandard design and work OK on military programs? You imply it is.
Why not take the 12 or so short falls and show what is being done to resolve the issues and how soon the fix will be in place and retesting complete. I would guess you don't have a clue.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4931
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Thu May 22, 2014 12:56 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 52):
My point remains that instead of answering the points identified, the answer given is so what, all programs have problems. That is pure avoidance.

These points have been answered many times previously. Should I continue to site the same information again and again because people don't take the time to educate themselves?

Quoting kanban (Reply 52):
Why not take the 12 or so short falls and show what is being done to resolve the issues and how soon the fix will be in place and retesting complete. I would guess you don't have a clue.

In the interests of proving a point and showing that perhaps I do have a clue...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
In November 2011, a Pentagon study team identified the following 13 areas of concern that remained to be addressed in the F-35:
The helmet-mounted display system does not work properly.
The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard.
The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service.
The F-35C's arresting hook does not work.
Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth.
The wing buffet is worse than previously reported.
The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan.
The flight test program has yet to explore the most challenging areas.
The software development is behind schedule.
The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, not properly balanced for VTOL operations.
There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft.
The automated logistics information system is partially developed.
The lightning protection on the F-35 is uncertified, with areas of concern.

The helmet-mounted display system does not work properly.

The Gen 2 helmet system’s latency, or response time at importing DAS imagery—measured in milliseconds—was not the problem testers thought it would be, Kelly said. Pilots just hadn’t had the opportunity to use the DAS sensor array during flight testing. Test pilots experienced display jitter in areas of the F-35 flight envelope that hadn’t been approved for training, he said. The program addressed the problem by integrating micro inertial measurement units and filtering algorithms in the HMDS to cancel out jitter effects. Pilots flew the fixes using a modified Gen 2 helmet.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...begin-flying-improved-gen-3-helmet

F-35 test pilots will begin flying this year with a third-generation helmet mounted display system (HMDS) that incorporates modifications to the earlier-generation display system, which the Pentagon has identified as an F-35 program risk. The fixes the fighter program developed for the “Gen 3” helmet system persuaded the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) to stop funding an alternate helmet-mounted display.

“I definitely have confidence that we are on the right track; we have the right plan for these fixes in place,” said Marine Lt. Col. Matthew Kelly, government flight test director at the F-35 integrated training center at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.


The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard. -


Lockheed Martin has found a way to fix the F-35 Lightning II’s fuel dump system, eliminating a potential fire hazard, a top company official said.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2.../Lockheed-Touts-Fix-F-35-Fuel-Dump

The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service. -

Honeywell, the manufacturer of the IPP is working on a fix. There is little info available about this currently and no issues have occurred since the problem in 2011.

The F-35C's arresting hook does not work. -

The F-35C, the Navy version of the Joint Strike Fighter and the plane most in danger of being cut or reduced by its service, has passed the first round of critical tests of its tail hook, the part of the plane that makes traditional carrier landings possible.

CF-3 is the first F-35C to be fitted with the redesigned Arresting Hook System, as it’s formally known. The plane has returned to the Navy’s Patuxent River test facility where for the next three to four months it will undergo “field-based ship suitability tests, including fly-in arrestments.” Those tests are expected to lead to a certification of the F-35C for carrier flight trials, planned for October aboard the USS Nimitz (CVN-68).

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/02/n...-tests-carrier-flights-in-october/

Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth. -

Sorry, I cannot answer against something that I do not know and only rumours exist about what it actually is.

The wing buffet is worse than previously reported. -

On the other hand, wing drop is no longer a performance issue for the F-35, contrary to claims in some quarters, our authoritative source at the Pentagon tells us. The issue is, as almost always, much more complex than that simple statement indicates, but it’s been 18 months since the issue surfaced and software fixes leave the Joint Strike Fighter in fine shape, this source says.

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/08/d...is-yet-f-35-wing-drop-issue-fixed/

The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan. -

The reason for that is because the F-35B structural durability test article had already accumulated 9,480 hours of equivalent fight time when testing was stopped to discover the root cause of the problem.

According to the joint statement: “9,480 durability test hours equate to more than 17 years of operational flying.”

The F-35 is required to have an airframe life of 8,000 flight hours—which must be verified via durability testing though two complete structural lifetimes.


http://news.usni.org/2014/02/24/crac...-strike-fighter-wont-delay-program

The flight test program has yet to explore the most challenging areas. -

From early 2013

Tests to clear the F-35A “clean wing” flight envelope for the Block 2B initial combat capability—to Mach 1.6/700 kt airspeed, 9g maneuvers and 40,000-ft. altitude (see F-35 Capability Plan table)—are wrapping up. The next step will be to clear the envelope with internal weapons-bay doors open, he says. Release of the Block 2B envelope is planned for mid-2015. Expanding the flight envelope to 50,000 ft. for the Block 3F full combat capability is planned for 2016, when development testing is scheduled to finish.

The flight-sciences sortie rate is ahead of plan for the F-35B and C, but behind for the A, says the DOT&E. There are high-speed/high-altitude restrictions on all three variants caused by the tail scorching. New surface coatings have been flown unsuccessfully, so a new skin design will be tested on CTOL aircraft AF-2 early this year, according to the report.

High angle-of-attack testing is underway at Edwards AFB using aircraft AF-4 equipped with a spin-recovery parachute. Where the F-16 is limited to 26 deg. alpha by its fly-by-wire flight-control system, the F-35's limiter is set at 50 deg. and the aircraft has been flown to 73 deg. to ensure there is sufficient pitch authority. “We have to really slow down to get those pitch conditions—100 kt at 40,000 ft.,” says McFarlan. “Pilots are pleased with the ability to get the nose down from high angle of attack.”

The control system is designed to prevent departure from controlled flight at high alpha. In tests now beginning, the prevention feature is turned off, the aircraft forced to depart and the system turned back on to ensure it recovers the aircraft. The ultimate goal is to demonstrate safe recovery from a flat spin, with the chute as a backup. After completing these tests, they will be repeated with the spin chute removed. High-alpha testing on the F-35B will begin this year.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/f-35-jsf-testers-report-progress-problems

The software development is behind schedule. -

From the program’s outset, the software team has focused on developing six key software releases known as Blocks:

Block 1A/1B – Block 1 comprises 76 percent of the more than 8 million source lines of code required for the F-35’s full warfighting capability. Block 1A was the ready for training configuration while Block 1B provided initial multi-level security.
Block 2A – Block 2A is currently released to the F-35 fleet. It provides enhanced training including functionality for off-board fusion, initial data links, electronic attack and mission debrief. Under Block 2A, nearly 86 percent of the required code for full warfighting capability is flying.
Block 2B – Block 2B provides initial warfighting capabilities, including but not limited to expanded data links, multi-ship fusion and initial live weapons. The U.S. Marines will declare IOC with Block 2B. Under Block 2B, more than 88 percent of the required code for full warfighting capability is flying.
Block 3i – Block 3i provides the same capabilities as Block 2B. The principal difference between 2B and 3i is the implementation of new hardware, specifically the updated Integrated Core Processor. The Air Force will declare IOC with Block 3i. With Block 3i, more than 89 percent of code required for full warfighting capability will fly.
Block 3F – Block 3F provides 100 percent of the software required for full warfighting capability, including but not limited to data link imagery, full weapons and embedded training. Requirements development for Block 3F was completed in June of 2013.

Current Software Development Status

As of March 2014, more than 88 percent of the required F-35 software is currently flying. Approximately 97 percent of the required software has been coded. This equates to about 200,000 lines of code that remain to be written.
In 2013, the F-35 program flight tested the first four iterations of Block 2B, the software configuration the Marines will use to declare Initial Operating Capability. Pilots conducted sensor fusion operations, executed night landings on the USS Wasp and dropped both air-to-air and air-to-ground ordnance. The software is proving to be stable and performing well.

https://www.f35.com/about/life-cycle/software

The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, not properly balanced for VTOL operations. -

The fixes made to the Marine Corps' short-takeoff, vertical-landing variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter actually improved the weight margin on the aircraft by 270 pounds, despite concerns by the Pentagon's acquisition chief last year that it would add to the aircraft's weight, a Lockheed Martin official told reporters Jan. 20.

http://defensenewsstand.com/index.ph...Bwdi9JdGVtaWQsMjg5L2lkLDIzODc5MTYv

There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft. -

I can't find any info on this but given the F-35B has successfully completed sea trials onboard USS Wasp this is unlikely to be an issue.

The automated logistics information system is partially developed. -

ALIS integration and testing continues with the next, more capable version expected to be delivered in 2014.”

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...35s-at-alis-maintenance-hub-04368/

The lightning protection on the F-35 is uncertified, with areas of concern. -

F-35 has or is about to be certified to fly at adverse weather conditions. I will find that reference later.

Quoting kanban (Reply 52):

Happy?

[Edited 2014-05-21 17:57:01]

[Edited 2014-05-21 17:58:16]
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9536
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Thu May 22, 2014 5:12 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 51):
How about the number of aircraft bought before the definitive type was fielded?
F-80C: 700+
F-84F: 2000+
F-86F: 900+
F-94C: 400+
F-100F: 1900+
F-4E: 1300+
F-16 Block 30: 1800+

That is called developing an existing platform as technology advances.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Thu May 22, 2014 5:57 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 54):
That is called developing an existing platform as technology advances.

No, how many of these were versions that fixed problems that appeared or cropped up while in service, or to fix known problems that were pushed down the line? Hint: the majority of them were. Look at the service histories of these types. How many times do you see prhases like 'structural improvements', 'reliability modifications', 'uprated performance to improve performance / fuel consumption', 'engineering refinements', 'addressing tactical shortcomings' and 'handling improvements' mentioned as a major key feature of an aircraft version?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9536
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Thu May 22, 2014 7:53 am

But they met the baseline contract criteria when bought. The F-35 still has to check quite a few items on the list. Now if the contract was over ambitious and unrealistic considering the technological leap given by the F-35 is something I would agree with.
It is perfectly normal that early birds will have some minor problems. Imho the best thing would be to accept this and start full series production at 180+ frames a year right now. F-35 is better than anything else flying anyway and this half footed approach just wastes money.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Thu May 22, 2014 4:37 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 53):
Happy?

Thanks, you proved the point that many items although identified and in work really have no incorporation date or retrofit completion date. Yes they have been identified and discussed, but as you note, they are still open items and worthy of further update. The planes will remain at a disadvantage if called on. Now how about the issues identified in 2013?

Structural fatigue testing was stopped to determine the cause of what problem??? While the fatigue testing is fairly good for commercial aircraft in determining robustness, fighter aircraft in actual combat situations develop stresses that were not produceable in static test. If a combat situation develops I doubt the planes will be limited to flying once a week, but if they are they will wear out quickly.

However TopBoom raised the issue, so let's wait for his analysis.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 56):
Imho the best thing would be to accept this and start full series production at 180+ frames a year right now.

Normally you would have a point, however the contractor will be seeking additional funds to correct the short falls and retrofit the fixes.. That's part of the game.... and speeding up production of incomplete units only adds to the cost.. However Congress may decide not to have them corrected and we will have an over abundance of air show only units.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Thu May 22, 2014 10:21 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 40):
The F-35 will IOC with the following capabilities,
1. All-weather A2A capability
2. All-weather A2G fixed target attack via SAR & JDAM (or datalinked GPS coordinates)
3. Limited clear-weather moving target attack via EOTS & Paveway
4. Full datalinks (MADL & Link-16)
5. Multi-ship data fusion
6. EODAS tracking
7. BDA

              

Quoting Ozair (Reply 50):
Quoting kanban (Reply 46):For the amount of money going into this program, the short falls in deliver are unacceptable, and are compounded by LM's continued production of substandard vehicles.
The monetary investment in the F-35 is comparatively no greater than that invested in previous fighter development programs. The ~390 Billion looks big because it includes a production run of 2400 aircraft with inflation adjusted over the expected length of the program.

The 2013 cost estimates for the entire F-35 program was $1.0165 TRILLION (USD). There have been about 100 F-35s, of all models built to date. The 2013 fly unit costs for the F-35A was $124.8 Million, the F-35B was $156.8 million, the F-35C was $142.6 million. The first flight of the F-35 was December 2006. It has been in testing for 7.5 years now and is still only 30% through the flight testing phase.
In contrast, the F-22A program costs just $66.7 Billion, 195 airplanes produced (including 8 test airplanes) at $150 million each, IOC was December 2005. First flight was in September 1997. The F-22 spent just 7.75 years from FF through flight testing to IOC.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 40):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):The DOD has identified problems with the F-35 fleet going back to 2011, when the first first started going big in the flight test program:
News flash Boom, the aircraft is in testing and has yet to reach IOC.

Testing is the period in a development program where you are supposed to find out all the issues that the computer models, technological limitations and manufacturing issues. In the case of the F-35, it has the most comprehensive testing program in aviation history.


That is exactly my point. In 7.5 years and only 30% through flight testing? The Director of the F-35A OT&E did not approve the master plan for testing in Aug 2012, a month later the Pentagon disapproved the OT&E mater plans for the B and C models.
Introduction is currently scheduled as F-35B to the USMC in 2016, F-35A to the USAF in 2017, and F-35C to the USN in 2020. These are the most recent 'adjustments' to the schedule. Each model has slipped by one year for introduction. IOC will not be for at least one year after introduction for each model.



That's one way of putting it (most comprehensive testing program in history). But, lets say the USAF does receive IOC for the F-35A in 2018, that will be 13 years from the FF for the F-35A (the first model to fly) to IOC.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4931
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Fri May 23, 2014 1:33 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 57):
Thanks, you proved the point that many items although identified and in work really have no incorporation date or retrofit completion date.

Now you're just being silly.

The helmet-mounted display system does not work properly. - Fixed and now flying.
The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard. - Fixed and now flying.
The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service. - Honeywell is in the process of fixing but no issue has occurred since 2011.
The F-35C's arresting hook does not work. - Fixed, in testing.
Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth. - No need to even consider.
The wing buffet is worse than previously reported. - Fixed and flying.
The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan. - Fixed and flying.
The flight test program has yet to explore the most challenging areas. - No issue.
The software development is behind schedule. - No issue.
The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, not properly balanced for VTOL operations. - Fixed and flying.
There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft. - Fixed and flying.
The automated logistics information system is partially developed. - Next version expected this year.
The lightning protection on the F-35 is uncertified, with areas of concern. - Fixed and certified soon.

Quoting kanban (Reply 57):
The planes will remain at a disadvantage if called on.

Shall I repeat this again just in case you missed it..... IT IS STILL IN TESTING!

The F-35 is not expected to IOC until late 2015, that is a year and a half from now. The aircraft the USMC IOCs with with be the last F-35Bs that come out of the line, incorporating all the updates and modifications.

Quoting kanban (Reply 57):
Now how about the issues identified in 2013?

Briefly

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
In March 2013, USAF test pilots, flying with pre-operational software that did not utilize the all-aspect infrared AAQ-37 DAS sensor, noted a lack of visibility from the F-35 cockpit during evaluation flights which would get them consistently shot down in combat. Defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler concluded from flight evaluation reports that the F-35A "is flawed beyond redemption"; in response, program manager Bogdan suggested that pilots worried about being shot down should fly cargo aircraft instead. The same report found (in addition to the usual problems with the aircraft listed above):
Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training.
Ejection seat may fail causing pilot fatality.
Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touch screen controls.
The radar performs poorly or not at all.
Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified.
Maintenance tools do not work.

Nothing above is a major concern at that stage of the test program.
The first is a complete non issue.
Software is now running to schedule.
The ejection seat is a non issue.
Interfaces get fixed in testing all the time, it is why the plane is being tested. You won't hear about a fix for that issue because it is so small and insignificant.
The radar has no reported issues now that Blk 2 software is flying.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 58):
The 2013 cost estimates for the entire F-35 program was $1.0165 TRILLION (USD).

If you are going to cite numbers please understand what those numbers mean. The figure above is the cost to develop, acquire and then operate the F-35 fleet for the next 50 years (including mid -life upgrades for every F-35). Not the cost of the dev and acquisition program.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 58):
the F-22A program costs just $66.7 Billion

Again, please compare direct numbers. The US$69 billion as per the F-22 2010 SAR is for dev and acquisition only.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 58):
The 2013 fly unit costs for the F-35A was $124.8 Million, the F-35B was $156.8 million, the F-35C was $142.6 million.

LRIP cost.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 58):
195 airplanes produced (including 8 test airplanes) at $150 million each

Well if you want to fudge numbers go ahead. The actual cost is available here, http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistic...0-%20SAR%20-%2025%20DEC%202010.pdf and comes in at an average of US$185 mill.

I am happy to compare costs with you when F-35 enters full rate production and compare these to F-22.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 58):
the F-22A program costs just $66.7 Billion
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 58):
It has been in testing for 7.5 years now and is still only 30% through the flight testing phase.

And primarily due to two factors, JPO asks for spec change on F-35B and congress mandates slowing of LRIP for F-35 which extends the testing program. F-35 is also significantly more capable at IOC than F-22.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 58):
The F-22 spent just 7.75 years from FF through flight testing to IOC.

The F-22 IOC was a basic aircraft with A2A and very basic A2G with GPS munitions only. It wasn't until the 3.1 upgrade was funded that it was actually capable of dropping a bomb through self-designation (and these are still GPS units only).

The first combat-capable Block 3.0 aircraft was first flown on 5 January 2001.[89] In 2009, Increment 3.1 began testing, providing a basic ground-attack capability through synthetic-aperture radar mapping and radio emitter direction finding, electronic attack and the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb.[90] The Increment 3.1 Modification Team with the 412th Test Wing received the Chief of Staff Team Excellence Award for upgrading 149 Raptors.[91][92] The first upgraded aircraft was delivered in 2012.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor

Note first upgraded aircraft delivered in 2012!!!

So that is 15 years after first flight before it was capable of not even half the current capability of the F-35 with regards to dropping A2G ordnance.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 58):
Introduction is currently scheduled as F-35B to the USMC in 2016, F-35A to the USAF in 2017, and F-35C to the USN in 2020.

Again, why don't you actually provide a source for your claims given the following says this, https://www.f35.com/news/detail/department-of-defense-announces-f-35-ioc-dates-for-all-services/

Based on the current F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) schedule, the F-35A will reach the IOC milestone between August 2016 (Objective) and December 2016 (Threshold).

Based on the current F-35 JPO schedule, the F-35B will reach the IOC milestone between July 2015 (Objective) and December 2015 (Threshold).

Based on the current F-35 JPO schedule, the F-35C will reach the IOC milestone between August 2018 (Objective) and February 2019 (Threshold).

The Navy date may slip, but at Navy request due to sequestration, not due to unavailability of the aircraft or systems.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 58):
But, lets say the USAF does receive IOC for the F-35A in 2018, that will be 13 years from the FF for the F-35A (the first model to fly) to IOC.

And if all goes to plan, it will IOC with the quoted capabilities.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 58):
Quoting Ozair (Reply 40):
The F-35 will IOC with the following capabilities,
1. All-weather A2A capability
2. All-weather A2G fixed target attack via SAR & JDAM (or datalinked GPS coordinates)
3. Limited clear-weather moving target attack via EOTS & Paveway
4. Full datalinks (MADL & Link-16)
5. Multi-ship data fusion
6. EODAS tracking
7. BDA

F-22 could not do 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 58):
most comprehensive testing program in history

20,000 flight hours and 90,000 test points. I would say that is pretty comprehensive!

Quoting kanban (Reply 57):
Normally you would have a point, however the contractor will be seeking additional funds to correct the short falls and retrofit the fixes.. That's part of the game.... and speeding up production of incomplete units only adds to the cost.. However Congress may decide not to have them corrected and we will have an over abundance of air show only units.

Wrong.

You know this info, I provided it in a different thread you actively posted in. Only LRIP 5 and below is the government responsible for modifications. The US Government and LM share the cost for LRIP 6 & 7. Expectations are LM will be solely responsible for concurrency costs for LRIP 8+.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9536
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Fri May 23, 2014 5:11 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 57):

Normally you would have a point, however the contractor will be seeking additional funds to correct the short falls and retrofit the fixes.. That's part of the game.... and speeding up production of incomplete units only adds to the cost.. However Congress may decide not to have them corrected and we will have an over abundance of air show only units.

The European Typhoon is flying for 20 years and still is an airshow plane only. those early birds would be fine to be later used by the ANG, just like early F-16s found new life as ADF versions.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Fri May 23, 2014 5:47 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 59):
Now you're just being silly.

Oh great on site authority.. don't know where you dig up your beliefs that are passed as fact, but I seriously question the accuracy ..

Quoting Ozair (Reply 59):
Nothing above is a major concern at that stage of the test program.

OK at what stage do they become a concern? They are a problem but maybe not for air show static displays. What I love is how some fan boys poo-poo any problems, consider in work as solved, and parrot other fan boys as authorities. Noticed you glossed over the engine change out times.. and I expect to see an attempt to say it's meeting the 2 hr requirement with a crew of 26 people..


Quoting seahawk (Reply 60):
just like early F-16s found new life as ADF versions.

I must be getting old but ADF? can't seem to place the definition.
However I suspect the first 100 F-35s will be reconfigured as drones for the F22s and A10s to practice shooting down.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 59):
You know this info, I provided it in a different thread you actively posted in. Only LRIP 5 and below is the government responsible for modifications. The US Government and LM share the cost for LRIP 6 & 7. Expectations are LM will be solely responsible for concurrency costs for LRIP 8+.

I realize you believe this, however having spent years on the inside, there is enough fine print that no matter what the contract says in general terms, LM will make more money because they will contend that the short falls and corrections were outside the original specifications.. They will be fixing things that never should have gone into production, even at a low production rate until resolved. Also, recall the other fan boy's complaint in another thread that the testing of the revised hook was delayed for lack of funds.. sheesh a high school tech student could have spotted the original design was faulty..

It's also funny that the only fan boys are either Canadians or Australians who have little vested interest in the first 150 plus copies, however if your armed forces receive these incomplete hazards, I bet the tune will change..

Above someone noted that F-22 only needed 8 test vehicles, OK the F-35 has three variants so that would be 24 max.. so here we have LM grinding out test vehicles and trainers that are incomplete for anything more than that and air shows.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Fri May 23, 2014 6:06 am

The main issue that is not being said here that there are a number of posters here that continue to use 3 year old reports and documents in order to state their case that the F-35 is defective and should be cancelled. I shouldn't have to remind people that 3 years is a lot of time and things will change very rapidly.

We point out that the reports are continuously being used by posters here that the F-35 is a failure is over 3 years old, and that many of the fixes to the reported issues have either been completed, in final phases of completion, or in testing. You backtrack and lamely try to quibble over these reports.

For those who continue to argue using outdated reports and documents, it suggests a form of intellectual dishonesty with your argument. Stop wasting everyone's time by using out of date reports and arguing that these reports continue to be true.

Quoting kanban (Reply 61):
I must be getting old but ADF? can't seem to place the definition.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article14.html

Quote:
In October 1986, the USAF announced that operational block 15 F-16A/B aircraft would be converted to air defense fighters for the Air National Guard, and would take over the fighter interception mission, providing the primary defense of North America against bombers and cruise missiles.

The first F-16A ADF conversion was completed in February 1989, while a contract was placed for kits to update and modify a total of 270 F-16A/B's at the Ogden Air Logistics Center in Utah. The Block 15 airframes used for the ADF program were all meant to be upgraded to block 15OCU standard, and both programs ran in conjunction. Aircraft entering the Ogden ALC for ADF upgrade also received the Block 15OCU avionics installation. The net result is that all ADF aircraft are Block 15OCU airframes. The last ADF left Ogden in 1992.
Quoting kanban (Reply 61):
Also, recall the other fan boy's complaint in another thread that the testing of the revised hook was delayed for lack of funds.. sheesh a high school tech student could have spotted the original design was faulty..

LM didn't have anything to do with the issues with the tail hook; in fact they designed the tail hook to the wire behaviour specifications provided by the USN. It turned out that the information provided by the USN was incorrect.

How is the manufacturer at fault if they are provided with incorrect data? If you provide a builder with incorrect dimensions for your house, is it builder's problem if he builds it to your dimensions?

The same thing happened to the X-47B; Northrop Grumman was also supplied incorrect wire dynamics data and that forced a redesign of the X-47B's tail hook as well.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4931
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Fri May 23, 2014 10:52 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 61):
don't know where you dig up your beliefs that are passed as fact,

Perhaps it is from the source material I reference. You should try it sometime....

Quoting kanban (Reply 61):
Australians who have little vested interest in the first 150 plus copies, however if your armed forces receive these incomplete hazards, I bet the tune will change..

You could have looked this up....

Australia is getting two in LRIP 6, http://australianaviation.com.au/201...enefit-from-lower-f-35-lrip-costs/

As well as eight in LRIP 10 and four in LRIP 11. “The next lots deliver in LRIP-10 [eight aircraft for delivery in 2018] and LRIP-11 [four aircraft for delivery in 2019],”
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...0/DEFREG03/302100033/All-Eyes-F-35

And a further 58 to come during full rate production.
http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-04-2...m-australias-air-combat-capability

Interesting to note that as a component of their expected overall fleets Australia will have a higher number of LRIP jets than the USAF. I expect these LRIP jets to serve their full 30 year lifespan in RAAF service.
Quoting kanban (Reply 61):
Above someone noted that F-22 only needed 8 test vehicles, OK the F-35 has three variants so that would be 24 max..

Not only are more airframes required but as already posted the requirements for F-35 at IOC are significantly greater than previous jets.
 
Scruffer
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 3:12 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Fri May 23, 2014 5:58 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 50):
The interesting point is that once a US fighter aircraft reaches full rate production history shows us it is typically purchased in greater numbers than planned. F-15, F-16, F-18, SH were all purchased in greater numbers than originally planned. F-22 is the sole case of lesser numbers and there are clear reasons for that.

Incorrect, the F-22 never reached full production status. It lingered on at LRIP throughout its whole production phase. Given that, it would show that if a plane reaches full production it tends to be purchased in greater numbers then originally planned for.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 58):
The 2013 cost estimates for the entire F-35 program was $1.0165 TRILLION (USD). There have been about 100 F-35s, of all models built to date. The 2013 fly unit costs for the F-35A was $124.8 Million, the F-35B was $156.8 million, the F-35C was $142.6 million. The first flight of the F-35 was December 2006. It has been in testing for 7.5 years now and is still only 30% through the flight testing phase.
In contrast, the F-22A program costs just $66.7 Billion, 195 airplanes produced (including 8 test airplanes) at $150 million each, IOC was December 2005. First flight was in September 1997. The F-22 spent just 7.75 years from FF through flight testing to IOC.

The 1 trillion estimate is over 50 years..... counting upgrades, operations, inflation, interest, base construction, pilot training, and everything else that is connected to it. If you did that for any plane in the past or current it would also be a huge number.

The number you give for the F-22 was from 2006, and it does not include the same costs as the F-35 number, so if you count up all the operations costs, training, planned upgrades, and include inflation for all those things for the next 40 years you will also see a huge number.

If you did that with the F-15 back in the 70s it would also be a huge number....
 
GDB
Posts: 13528
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Fri May 23, 2014 6:38 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 60):
The European Typhoon is flying for 20 years and still is an airshow plane only. those early birds would be fine to be later used by the ANG, just like early F-16s found new life as ADF versions.

Really? RAF Typhoons have dropped PGM's, including with self designation, operationally in Libya in 2011.
Brimstone and Storm Shadow capability in development, Storm Shadow, the more challenging of the two is expected to be available from late 2015.
The incentive to do this is the retirement of the current platforms for these weapons, the RAF Tornado GR.4 by 2019.

Both RAF and German Typhoons have carried out operational air policing in Eastern Europe, RAF Typhoons, as presumably do German ones too, handle all the air defence/QRA work now.
It is purely a political choice that the German Typhoon fleet has or is not getting the range of upgrades other users might be doing.
The program lost two years with the again wholly political move by the then German government to try and axe the program in 1992, citing the need for something cheaper and more relevant to their short term needs, (no matter how it affects the other partner nations, who was being a 'bad European' then?) which they failed to find.
Had they got their way the German aerospace industry would have been damaged too.

The result, time lost, money wasted and the German AF get a less capable Typhoon.

Granted the Tranche 1 airframes are less versatile, though RAF ones demonstrated a PGM capability in combat.
Still rather more than an 'airshow plane' then.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Fri May 23, 2014 8:35 pm

As stated over and over, the F-35 cant go away, but it can be trimmed. The F-35B is just too much. The USMC really doesnt need a supersonic stealth STOVL. They think they do, they want it, but dont NEED it. If you need that asset, bring in a super carrier. Otherwise, the USMC should be only flying attack helicopters and maybe light COIN aircraft. Modern attack helicopters are fast and have pretty long legs... they dont need to be doing deep penetration aerial strikes.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Sat May 24, 2014 12:05 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 59):
Ozair

The F-35 will not IOC in 2015. As you said it is still in testing.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 62):
The main issue that is not being said here that there are a number of posters here that continue to use 3 year old reports and documents in order to state their case that the F-35 is defective and should be cancelled. I shouldn't have to remind people that 3 years is a lot of time and things will change very rapidly.

Much of the F-35 test data is not public information, some of it is still classified. What is made public is given the most positive spin possible. Many experts in stealth and in fighter ops have been very critical of what has been released. The USAF and USN just dismiss them as retired F14, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 pilots. But who is testing the F-35? It is old F-14, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 pilots.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 63):
I expect these LRIP jets to serve their full 30 year lifespan in RAAF service.

You should expect at least that, after what they are costing the Aussie taxpayers.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Sat May 24, 2014 12:09 am

Quoting Scruffer (Reply 64):
The 1 trillion estimate is over 50 years..... counting upgrades, operations, inflation, interest, base construction, pilot training, and everything else that is connected to it. If you did that for any plane in the past or current it would also be a huge number.

And the number has been revised; it's currently $857 million, and dropping:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...al-Challenges-Lessen-Officials-Say

Quoting Scruffer (Reply 64):
If you did that with the F-15 back in the 70s it would also be a huge number....

If you do it with every weapon, you will get a very large number regardless! F-35 is just the first weapon system to have its cost calculated using this methodology.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 66):
The USMC really doesnt need a supersonic stealth STOVL. They think they do, they want it, but dont NEED it. If you need that asset, bring in a super carrier. Otherwise, the USMC should be only flying attack helicopters and maybe light COIN aircraft.

We've argued about this in the past. Here's an example of those threads:
200 A-10s For The Marine Corps? (by cmb56 Dec 27 2013 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)#1
 
Scruffer
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 3:12 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Sat May 24, 2014 3:03 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 68):
If you do it with every weapon, you will get a very large number regardless! F-35 is just the first weapon system to have its cost calculated using this methodology.

It is a flawed method and a complete waste of time. There is nothing gained from gathering the information for that methodology unless you are campaigning for something.

The sad thing is that multiple offices have been calculating this and wasting even more money...... even with it being such a useless number.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9536
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Sat May 24, 2014 8:31 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 65):
Really? RAF Typhoons have dropped PGM's, including with self designation, operationally in Libya in 2011.
Brimstone and Storm Shadow capability in development, Storm Shadow, the more challenging of the two is expected to be available from late 2015.
The incentive to do this is the retirement of the current platforms for these weapons, the RAF Tornado GR.4 by 2019.

Both RAF and German Typhoons have carried out operational air policing in Eastern Europe, RAF Typhoons, as presumably do German ones too, handle all the air defence/QRA work now.
It is purely a political choice that the German Typhoon fleet has or is not getting the range of upgrades other users might be doing.
The program lost two years with the again wholly political move by the then German government to try and axe the program in 1992, citing the need for something cheaper and more relevant to their short term needs, (no matter how it affects the other partner nations, who was being a 'bad European' then?) which they failed to find.
Had they got their way the German aerospace industry would have been damaged too.

The result, time lost, money wasted and the German AF get a less capable Typhoon.

Granted the Tranche 1 airframes are less versatile, though RAF ones demonstrated a PGM capability in combat.
Still rather more than an 'airshow plane' then.

And by 2022 the F-35 will be way more capable than Typhoon is today.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Sat May 24, 2014 2:17 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 70):
And by 2022 the F-35 will be way more capable than Typhoon is today.

That is merely the projection, we'll see what 8 more years of testing and integration bring. Remember that all the rosy predictions come from those that manage the public relations output to ensure money flowing into the program. Projections that far out are at best 50% accurate.
 
GDB
Posts: 13528
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Sat May 24, 2014 8:06 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 70):
And by 2022 the F-35 will be way more capable than Typhoon is today.

So? The F-22 is much more expensive, including to operate, it's a later design than what became the Typhoon, to a requirement that differed from the Typhoon partners needs.
And way more capable how? In many areas granted it is but not in all.

The only fair comparison is with the Rafale, some would say the Super Hornet too though again built for a different mission and based on an older design.

I note there is no attempt to refute my points about how, to be blunt, silly is the assertion that the Typhoon is 'an air-show' aircraft'.
It's 2014 not 2002.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4931
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Sat May 24, 2014 9:33 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
Much of the F-35 test data is not public information, some of it is still classified. What is made public is given the most positive spin possible.

While the specific test data itself may be classified the general results of the testing are made public all the time. So we are clear on what you actually mean, would you please provide an example of where spin has been applied to F-35 testing results?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
Many experts in stealth and in fighter ops have been very critical of what has been released.

And are completely overwhelmed by in service and former military personnel from multiple countries who understand the incredible benefit F-35 will provide to air forces. And then consider Israel, Japan and South Korea, none of which are partners on the program, who have all selected the F-35. All three will receive deliveries in the LRIP period and could have chosen other aircraft but they didn't.

From all I have read these many experts are actually a few individuals, none of which have access to the actual test data or the classified specifications of the aircraft, who are quoted repeatedly out of context by the usual suspects.

Again, just so we are clear, why don't you provide some examples of these many experts, maybe 5 in fighter ops and five stealth experts (10 would probably satisfy the 'many'), so we can assess the quality of these individuals?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
The F-35 will not IOC in 2015.

At this point in time I would prefer to believe the USMC than yourself, who have stated they will IOC the F-35B in 2015.

Quoting kanban (Reply 71):
That is merely the projection

A projection that is already receiving funding.
http://defensetech.org/2014/04/16/pe...ops-f-35s-4th-generation-software/

Quoting kanban (Reply 71):
Projections that far out are at best 50% accurate.

Funny, you didn't seem so concerned about the projections from Boeing about Growler use in 2028 in a previous thread? An Interesting F-35/EA-18G Radar Defense View (by kanban Apr 29 2014 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

Were they also 50% accurate at best too?
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Sun May 25, 2014 12:01 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 73):
And then consider Israel, Japan and South Korea, none of which are partners on the program, who have all selected the F-35. All three will receive deliveries in the LRIP period and could have chosen other aircraft but they didn't.

The tipping point I would argue is Japan. Japan has the option of practically almost any fighter in production in the US or or develop an indigenous fighter and also had the opportunity to diversify their procurement from a European partner, and has the capability to afford whatever is necessary. They chose F-35. That's a big message.

And now there are numerous other foreign buyers who are not F-35 partners that have expressed interest. Nations like Finland, Singapore, and the UAE are among the list of potential customers that have expressed interest in F-35. These nations probably know something many analysts don't know, and would have access to classified or confidential information many people do not.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Sun May 25, 2014 1:20 am

So in essence the thought that what happened to the F-22 production will not happen to the F-35 is slim and none?
Putting all the eggs in one basket was seen as a sure fire way to ensure continued production, all I can say is that time will
tell.

As for the notion that all other military a/c in the last 30-40 years were produced as test frames through most of their production run simply means that the producers cannt learn from past experience, bummer.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Sun May 25, 2014 2:42 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 73):
Were they also 50% accurate at best too?

in a nut shell .. yes, and I would in long range forecasting for several years.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 73):
A projection that is already receiving funding.
http://defensetech.org/2014/04/16/pe...ware/

That and $5 will get you a cup of coffee.. but the results are still just a projection and a lot of crossed fingers.
 
FrmrKSEngr
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:05 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Sun May 25, 2014 5:40 pm

I will put my two cents in now, for what it is worth.

Will the F-35 eventually be a fine fighter - probably. And we will spend a bucket load of cash to make that happen.

Will an F-22/F-35 mix be a good approach to fighting future wars - No Way.

Look at the history since WWII.

Korea - F-80s can provide effective ground attack capability, and need long paved runways in Japan. Bring back the P-51.

Vietnam - Fast movers have trouble with the COIN operations. Take A-1s from the Navy, Re-manufacture A/B-26s to A-26Ks, mount guns to C-47s, Develop a new light attack jet (A-37) and create the specifications for a new heavy Attack Jet (A-10). (How well will F-35s do the sandy mission?)

Grenada - I recall it was A-10s and A-7s flying support, not F-16s and F-15s.

Panama - Again - foggy recollection, After the F-117 strike its the AC-130s, not the fast movers.

Desert Storm - After almost being relegated to the bone yard, the A-10s did the low level work (even bagged a couple of air to air kills and did night time scud hunts) that was too dangerous for the electric jet (F-16) to take on.

Iraq & Afghanistan, A-10s again get a pretty good work-out.

Going to an F-22/F-35 mix will put us back to 1950 Korea.

George Santayana is credited with saying "Those who forget the past are doomed to relive it". To me it seems the USAF never remembers the past.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Mon May 26, 2014 12:05 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 68):
And the number has been revised; it's currently $857 million, and dropping:
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 68):
If you do it with every weapon, you will get a very large number regardless! F-35 is just the first weapon system to have its cost calculated using this methodology.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 73):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):Much of the F-35 test data is not public information, some of it is still classified. What is made public is given the most positive spin possible.

You have a typo, it should read $857 BILLION. But I know what you meant.

While the specific test data itself may be classified the general results of the testing are made public all the time. So we are clear on what you actually mean, would you please provide an example of where spin has been applied to F-35 testing results?
Quoting Ozair (Reply 73):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):Many experts in stealth and in fighter ops have been very critical of what has been released.
And are completely overwhelmed by in service and former military personnel from multiple countries who understand the incredible benefit F-35 will provide to air forces.

Moshe Melnik, IDF, Fighter ACE, F-15 Pilot
Chuck Yager, USAF, Fighter ACE, USAF Flight Test Pilot
Dale Zelko, USAF, F-117 Pilot shot down in 1999 in Yugoslavia
Current USAF F-22 pilot who also flew the F-117 (I will not put his name)*
Current USAF F-16 pilot who had flown the F-22 (I will not put his name)*

* These guys are still in the USAF, and voicing their opinions on the F-35 will end their careers.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 73):
And then consider Israel, Japan and South Korea, none of which are partners on the program, who have all selected the F-35.

Israel is putting in some of their own avionics

Quoting Ozair (Reply 73):
From all I have read these many experts are actually a few individuals, none of which have access to the actual test data or the classified specifications of the aircraft, who are quoted repeatedly out of context by the usual suspects.

Ozair, you and I do not know who does and who does not have full access to all the F-35 test data. I suspect no one person has access to all the data, as the different models are meant for different customers. What is clear is the LM, USAF, USMC, and USN PR spin is always positive. The Generals and Admirals want the next shiny new sexy fighter and LM is just as willing to sell it to them.

Unfortunately the US military has a history of screwing up acquisition programs:

USAF; KC-X (2002), CSAR-X, KC-X (2008), T-52A, F-22

USN; LCS, VH-71, A-12

USMC; VH-71

Quoting Ozair (Reply 73):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):The F-35 will not IOC in 2015.
At this point in time I would prefer to believe the USMC than yourself, who have stated they will IOC the F-35B in 2015.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 73):
Quoting kanban (Reply 71):Projections that far out are at best 50% accurate.

The USAF is projecting to fly at least 178 F-15C/Ds until 2025 and beyond. That will be the first fighter to fly for 50 years

Funny, you didn't seem so concerned about the projections from Boeing about Growler use in 2028 in a previous thread? An Interesting F-35/EA-18G Radar Defense View (by kanban Apr 29 2014 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

Were they also 50% accurate at best too?
Quoting kanban (Reply 76):
in a nut shell .. yes, and I would in long range forecasting for several years.
Quoting par13del (Reply 75):
As for the notion that all other military a/c in the last 30-40 years were produced as test frames through most of their production run simply means that the producers cannt learn from past experience, bummer.
No number that is more than 5 years out can be accurate. %0 years out is always a pipe dream. I might add that very few aircraft have achieved 50 years of military service. They are the KC-135, B-52, C-130, and U-2. No fighter has flown to 50 years of service, although the F-15 may be the first.

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 77):
Will an F-22/F-35 mix be a good approach to fighting future wars - No Way.

Look at the history since WWII.

Korea - F-80s can provide effective ground attack capability, and need long paved runways in Japan. Bring back the P-51.

Vietnam - Fast movers have trouble with the COIN operations. Take A-1s from the Navy, Re-manufacture A/B-26s to A-26Ks, mount guns to C-47s, Develop a new light attack jet (A-37) and create the specifications for a new heavy Attack Jet (A-10). (How well will F-35s do the sandy mission?)

Grenada - I recall it was A-10s and A-7s flying support, not F-16s and F-15s.

Panama - Again - foggy recollection, After the F-117 strike its the AC-130s, not the fast movers.

Desert Storm - After almost being relegated to the bone yard, the A-10s did the low level work (even bagged a couple of air to air kills and did night time scud hunts) that was too dangerous for the electric jet (F-16) to take on.

Iraq & Afghanistan, A-10s again get a pretty good work-out.

Going to an F-22/F-35 mix will put us back to 1950 Korea.


  
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9536
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Mon May 26, 2014 6:02 am

True, 1991 A-10s were taken from the CAS mission to join the SCUD hunt, as they had the loiter time the F-16s lacked.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Mon May 26, 2014 1:15 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 79):
1991 A-10s were taken from the CAS mission to join the SCUD hunt, as they had the loiter time the F-16s lacked.

During the Vietnam war fuel was saved by having better intel and having the a/c go out an hit the bush I mean the target rather than fly around in circles waiting for a target to appear.
Good intel is always best.
Now for the rest of the story.............
 
Ozair
Posts: 4931
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Mon May 26, 2014 2:24 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 76):
in a nut shell .. yes

Fair enough. I disagree with you though. The roadmap for F-35 is defined, well understood and has been planned from the beginning.

Quoting par13del (Reply 75):

So in essence the thought that what happened to the F-22 production will not happen to the F-35 is slim and none?

That would be correct. Not only are the expected orders required to replace existing aircraft that are running out of hours but the F-35 has significantly more overall capability, and international commitment. F-22 had too narrow a mission set and only one customer.

There are only a few things that would now prevent F-35 from reaching full rate production,
1. An issue so significant it prevents the aircraft from completing its primary mission set. The aircraft is far enough along in its testing phase that this is highly unlikely to occur.
2. An economic collapse so great it cuts all acquisition budgets. In this case nothing gets purchased.
3. Aliens invade and conquer Earth.

There might be a few scenarios between 2 and 3 that are more likely but you get the drift.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):

Thanks for trying but I have problems with your list.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):
Moshe Melnik, IDF, Fighter ACE, F-15 Pilot

I cannot find a single quote online from Moshe Melnik about the F-35. Was he quoted in print or is it in Hebrew? If so I would really like to read it so tell me where I can find it or PM me and I will give you an email address you can send a scanned copy to.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):
Chuck Yager, USAF, Fighter ACE, USAF Flight Test Pilot

One single sentence on twitter, about him preferring the F-15E over an F-35 based on cost, does not a critic make. While I have the utmost respect for Gen Yeager, I question his current knowledge on threats and aircraft capability. If LM had even a half decent PR department they would get him in the full motion sim and then let him sing praises after the experience (as long as his heart held up).

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):
Dale Zelko, USAF, F-117 Pilot shot down in 1999 in Yugoslavia

As with Melnik, I cannot find a single quote online from Dale Zelko about the F-35. Would you provide it for me?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):
Current USAF F-22 pilot who also flew the F-117 (I will not put his name)*
Current USAF F-16 pilot who had flown the F-22 (I will not put his name)*

* These guys are still in the USAF, and voicing their opinions on the F-35 will end their careers.

And I know half a dozen Australian and American fighter pilots who rave about the capabilities the F-35 will provide, including fighter weapons instructors.

Two guys you know, one twitter quote, one good pilot and a guy who got shot down in 1999 do not in my book qualify as

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
Many experts in stealth and in fighter ops

.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):
Israel is putting in some of their own avionics

Which any of the current manufacturers would have allowed them to do. The IDF choose based on capability, not on industrial offsets (except for the US cheque to pay for it).

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):
What is clear is the LM, USAF, USMC, and USN PR spin is always positive.

So give me an example?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):
The Generals and Admirals want the next shiny new sexy fighter

Rubbish. For starters, Generals and Admirals don't write the requirements for the aircraft. Generals and Admirals are also long gone by the time said shiny new jets show up.

Do you honestly think one or a group of star officers could hijack an acquisition in the name of shiny new jets?
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Mon May 26, 2014 3:45 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 81):
Fair enough. I disagree with you though. The roadmap for F-35 is defined, well understood and has been planned from the beginning.

Ever heard the saying "shit happens"? the number of variables, redirections and unknowns increase each year of a projection.. some can be accommodated without schedule interruption, others can not. It's not a perfect linearly ordered world.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 81):

Do you honestly think one or a group of star officers could hijack an acquisition in the name of shiny new jets?

Sorry it appears you live in an alternative reality where military brass are all on the verge of sainthood, do not influence subordinates personal opinions, or withhold damaging data. Ain't so grasshopper. They're political wusses protecting their backsides, pet projects , and a chance for a lucrative civilian consulting job on retirement (frequently connected to the last weapons system they championed).
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Mon May 26, 2014 10:00 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 62):

The main issue that is not being said here that there are a number of posters here that continue to use 3 year old reports and documents in order to state their case that the F-35 is defective and should be cancelled. I shouldn't have to remind people that 3 years is a lot of time and things will change very rapidly.

The main issue here is people are too afraid of new things. They'd rather fly the useless A-10 forever even when their enemies are using far greater technology. In their minds when you say the same thing over and over 100x it must be true. Kinda like religion, you don't need proof for god to exist, but if enough clueless souls believe in it then he must be real.
 
Cross757
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:32 pm

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Mon May 26, 2014 10:56 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 83):
the useless A-10

Winner! Most "clueless" statement ever!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 83):
In their minds when you say the same thing over and over 100x it must be true

And that differs from things you have said 100x, how?!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 83):
Kinda like religion, you don't need proof for god to exist, but if enough clueless souls believe in it then he must be real.

So roughly 78% of the world's population is "clueless" now too, huh?

Well I believe in God and I'm a Hawg Driver and I'm not afraid to admit either of those.

So now l'll wait for you to "man up" and provide some tales of your real-world combat experiences or military service to back up your arguments, if you can. Or will it just be links to more reports/articles written by others? If it's the latter, please just respond with a simple "yes" and spare everyone the hassle...please.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 83):
The main issue here is people are too afraid of new things

No, in lean fiscal times, people (taxpayers) are getting tired of seeing their hard-earned money tossed down the drain on defense projects that continue to go over-budget and still not deliver on-time. Among other things.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Tue May 27, 2014 1:38 am

Quoting autothrust (Reply 1):
I really don't understand why the A-10 are retired, many countries would love to have some of them.

The issue is that the A-10 doesn't exist in enough numbers already for the USAF. Given the age of the aircraft, it would be very expensive to overhaul and upgrade any stored A-10 to operational status. I have doubts to how long the existing small fleet could really be pushed in intensive operations. That said the A-10 is much better off than most, Imagine fishing a first run F-16 out of the desert and thinking it could do anything at all today without enough money to just buy a new F-16

Quoting seahawk (Reply 79):

True, 1991 A-10s were taken from the CAS mission to join the SCUD hunt, as they had the loiter time the F-16s lacked.

No no, The F-16 was perfect for that role, 15minutes to search hundreds of square miles for well camoflaged targets that can move when you are not there.... Thats just the right amount of time. er wait.

The A-10 with its couple of hours lotier was often not enough time from the pilots perspective. I've read they weren't very happy with having to haul dumb bombs out there, they would rather stick to a lighter guided missile only loadout to increase the search time.

This new F-35 so far hasn't impressed me that its going to be any better in the search part of search and destroy. Its a big fat pig with stubby wings. Even with engines 30 years newer, its just too much pointy nose thinking and too little fighter thinking. F-16 turned out to be decent in the end because atleast the paid off procurment minions didn't forget that little part "fight" in the word "fighter".
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Tue May 27, 2014 1:56 am

Quoting Cross757 (Reply 84):
So now l'll wait for you to "man up" and provide some tales of your real-world combat experiences or military service to back up your arguments
Quoting Cross757 (Reply 84):
Or will it just be links to more reports/articles written by others?

I don't have to, just like everyone else here thrashing the F35 based on internet readings. Too many people think they know better than the governments of the world interested or that have already purchased the F35. Those who makes the decisions don't care about internet opinions.

Quoting Cross757 (Reply 84):
So roughly 78% of the world's population is "clueless" now too, huh?

78% of the worlds population is brainwashed. I don't care though, let them waste their time. I won't though, life is too short.
 
Cross757
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:32 pm

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Tue May 27, 2014 2:41 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 86):
I don't have to, just like everyone else here thrashing the F35 based on internet readings

Afraid to answer my question? That's ok, because I already know the answer.


Quoting Powerslide (Reply 86):
78% of the worlds population is brainwashed. I don't care though, let them waste their time. I won't though, life is too short.

And other's are brainwashed by what they read on the internet and take it all as "fact" without real experience to back it up, which goes back to my first statement. Thanks for clarifying!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9536
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Tue May 27, 2014 5:34 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 83):
The main issue here is people are too afraid of new things. They'd rather fly the useless A-10 forever even when their enemies are using far greater technology. In their minds when you say the same thing over and over 100x it must be true. Kinda like religion, you don't need proof for god to exist, but if enough clueless souls believe in it then he must be real.

There no longer the one war that will end them all. Conflicts range from terrorist hunts in Africa, to nation building like Afghanistan over the low level conflicts (like Panama or Grenada) to med. level conflicts like Irak then high level (like Korea back at the time) to all out wars between major powers.

I always thought that in over 60 years people should have learned that the US needs planes suitable for all kind of conflicts. But obviously once the "bush wars" end the lessons learned are forgotten and we go back to the "nobody needs guns when you got missiles", "nukes are the only solution", "only fast is good", "CAS is not a important mission for the USAF" line of thought.
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 5758
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Tue May 27, 2014 7:40 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 88):
"nobody needs guns when you got missiles", "nukes are the only solution", "only fast is good", "CAS is not a important mission for the USAF" line of thought.

What was the rationale for a no-fixed-wing-Army aviation to begin with? Can't we allow the Army to procure the aircraft that it seems fit for their overall operations?


David
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9536
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 am

Inter-service rivalry. If it has wings and can shoot thinks it must be Air Force. Pace-Finletter MOU from 1952 says:

Army organic aviation will consist of aircraft primarily utilized by the Army within the Army combat zone as an integral part of its components for the purpose of expediting and improving ground combat and logistical procedures, subject, however, to the limitation that such aircraft will not duplicate the functions of the U.S. Air Force in providing the Army, by fixed-wing and rotary-wing type aircraft, close combat support, assault transport and other troop carrier airlift, aerial photography, tactical reconnaissance and interdiction of enemy land power and communications. Army organic aircraft are defined as fixed-wing utility or observation type aircraft with an empty weight of not to exceed 5000 pounds and rotary-wing type aircraft, the total lift and propulsion of which are achieved solely from rotors, designed and utilized for the performance of the following functions; and these functions shall be used by the Army exclusively as a basis for developing Army requirements for the procurement of Army aircraft:

So the Army could not legally operate the A-10s even if it wanted to. (They can not even operate an AT-6 and even putting AGM-114s on one of their King Air versions is already difficult.)

[Edited 2014-05-27 01:05:18]
 
FrmrKSEngr
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:05 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Wed May 28, 2014 3:30 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 90):
the total lift and propulsion of which are achieved solely from rotors,

Looks like they can't fly compound helicopters or tilt rotors either. Wonder how they legally developed the Cheyenne?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9536
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Wed May 28, 2014 5:00 am

If it can hover and has rotors it is okay.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8108
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Wed May 28, 2014 6:15 am

It's still not too late to cancel this lemon.


Better yet, let the Marines keep the F35B, it makes sense as the biggest design compromises were made to incorporate the VSTOL capability and it may be a reasonable strike fighter. Although I don't see how it will cover the close air support
role the Harrier and A1O have done so well.


It's time to stop calling it a fighter, by any modern, or older generation standard it's not, it's slow, heavy, can't maneuver well, accelerate well and it's not even very stealthy.


But at least it's incredibly expensive and will be obsolete before it enters service. If this thing cannot rely on BVR and has to actually dogfight with any other modern fighter it will be totally outclassed.


Cancel it. Restart the F22 line for the Air Force. keep building an updated F16 and F18 while planning uncompromised replacements for these fine, cost effective aircraft.


It will save billions and make us a stronger nation, if the F35 keeps going forward we will be significantly weakened by this 'jack of all trades'


Cancel the lemon !!!
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Wed May 28, 2014 8:04 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 85):
The issue is that the A-10 doesn't exist in enough numbers already for the USAF. Given the age of the aircraft, it would be very expensive to overhaul and upgrade any stored A-10 to operational status. I have doubts to how long the existing small fleet could really be pushed in intensive operations. That said the A-10 is much better off than most, Imagine fishing a first run F-16 out of the desert and thinking it could do anything at all today without enough money to just buy a new F-16

And not all of the A-10's were built to the same structural standard.

240 of the A-10's built were built to the 'thin wing' standard. The remaining later production A-10's had thicker wing panels with more structural reinforcement. It's the earlier A-10's with the thin wings that are suffering the most in terms of structural fatigue, with heavy checks done. New wing sets only compromise about 170 aircraft that are already contracted for, and either installed or planned for installation. Regardless, the A-10 fleet is going to shrink drastically even if the USAF has the funding to keep A-10's in service.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 85):
The A-10 with its couple of hours lotier was often not enough time from the pilots perspective. I've read they weren't very happy with having to haul dumb bombs out there, they would rather stick to a lighter guided missile only loadout to increase the search time.

The problem was that A-10's were being shot up too often doing missions against the Republican Guard. Losses were starting to mount disproportionally with the A-10 fleet, and the USAF commander, Chuck Homer, pulled them off the Republican Guard and had the F-16's go up against the Republican Guard.

Long loiter times and low speeds are only useful if you can navigate and find targets, and the A-10 at the time had trouble doing so. It didn't have all-weather attack capabilities that the F-16 had, especially when the F-16 had the LANTRIN pod.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 85):
This new F-35 so far hasn't impressed me that its going to be any better in the search part of search and destroy.

Beyond the fact that the F-35 had a ground mapping radar and a surround IR sensor array that can detect hostile ground fire, and locate it? Coupled with Blue Force Indicator, and on the fighter's display, overlays to display the ground below with targets indicated, it will be a level beyond what the current fighters have.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 90):
So the Army could not legally operate the A-10s even if it wanted to. (They can not even operate an AT-6 and even putting AGM-114s on one of their King Air versions is already difficult.)

And the dirty secret is the Army isn't even interested in taking over the A-10's in the first place, even if they were allowed. If the Army saw the A-10 as being essential to supporting the US Army, they would have made every protestation possible in front of the Senate, and tried to get funding to keep the A-10's operational one way or another. And yet no one from the Army has said a peep regarding the A-10 being the prime target for retirement. It is almost as if the Army even supports the retirement of the A-10.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9536
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Wed May 28, 2014 8:28 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 94):
And the dirty secret is the Army isn't even interested in taking over the A-10's in the first place, even if they were allowed. If the Army saw the A-10 as being essential to supporting the US Army, they would have made every protestation possible in front of the Senate, and tried to get funding to keep the A-10's operational one way or another. And yet no one from the Army has said a peep regarding the A-10 being the prime target for retirement. It is almost as if the Army even supports the retirement of the A-10.

That is how Budget debates work. If the Army wants the A-10 they would probably be asked to give part of their budget to USAF so they keep the A-10. And even if they would be allowed to fly the A-10, the would not get the part of budget of the USAF that has financed the A-10 in the past.

So nobody from the Army would be willing to seriously fight for the A-10 for budget reasons alone. Apart from that C-27 experience must still be fresh, where Army budget was used on a program that the USAF took over and cancelled, without the Army ever getting any planes and the Army never getting back their part of the joint budget.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Wed May 28, 2014 12:15 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 93):

You going to post anything new or just keep on going with the same old tireless rants?
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12719
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Wed May 28, 2014 12:39 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 96):

You going to post anything new or just keep on going with the same old tireless rants?

Coming from you that's a bizarre statement, pot meet kettle!
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Wed May 28, 2014 9:32 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 97):
Coming from you that's a bizarre statement, pot meet kettle!

Don't worry, you are on that list too.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: The Comanche And The Albatross (F-35)

Thu May 29, 2014 12:10 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 95):
So nobody from the Army would be willing to seriously fight for the A-10 for budget reasons alone. Apart from that C-27 experience must still be fresh, where Army budget was used on a program that the USAF took over and cancelled, without the Army ever getting any planes and the Army never getting back their part of the joint budget.

If the US Army really wanted to have the A-10's kept operational, all they had to do was to sit at the Senate Armed Forces Committee hearings and declare that they wanted to see the USAF keep flying the A-10's, and the Senate must give the USAF the budget to do so. Full stop. That would have been a very powerful message to the Senate, and to the USAF.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos