More F-35 woes...

More F-35 woes...

Postby Talldan76 on Sun 01 Mar 2015, 8:38 pm

ok, so I know it from the Daily Mail, but Uh Oh...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -flaw.html
User avatar
Talldan76
UKAR Staff

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby boff180 on Sun 01 Mar 2015, 9:08 pm

The report on inside defense said that the F-35B can carry half of the SDBII it was designed to internally.

A number of internal components require redesign and replacement to allow a full load to be carried.

Andy
User avatar
boff180
UKAR Staff

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Black Projects on Mon 16 Mar 2015, 7:26 pm

Reading this it appears that DAVE Has big Problems! :ninja:

http://www.pogoarchives.org/straus/F-35 ... 150312.pdf
Black Projects

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby DanO1978 on Mon 16 Mar 2015, 7:37 pm

An absolute farce, beginning to end.

Just throwing good money after bad, aren't we?

Four and a half years since the Harriers were binned and still nowhere nearer getting the White Elephant MkI into service.
DanO1978

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Niallxg on Mon 16 Mar 2015, 7:50 pm

The Emperor's new clothes. In years to come this will be a classic case study of how to get things wrong in design, construction and procurement. :dizzy:

Unfortunately, too much money has been invested in the project and people have too much to loose - political, military and business careers - to cancel the project. The time to do that was years ago.
Niallxg

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby john001 on Mon 16 Mar 2015, 8:01 pm

Duncan Sandys was right just on 60 years too early...
john001

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Russ on Mon 16 Mar 2015, 10:38 pm

NEWSFLASH - Advanced warplane has teething issues during development.

The F-22 couldn't drop bombs, communicate with other air assets and was prone to asphyxiating the pilot. The Typhoon was a decade late entering service, cost twice the budgeted amount, had issues with it's intakes at supersonic speeds and is still years away from it's full capability. The Su-30MKI has huge reliability issues with it's engines. The Tornado GR4 couldn't drop LGB's when it entered service. The Super Hornet had extensive "wing drop" problems. The Rafale had development issues with it's radar. Need I go on?

Given the F-35 first flew less than nine years ago, given the revolutionary and complexity of the design, plus the diverse requirements of such a huge project, I'd say the programme has made pretty good progress. Particularly when compared to other less complicated modern combat aircraft. Delays, technical issues and cost increases are sadly inevitable and history has shown this is far from being exclusive to the F-35 programme.
User avatar
Russ

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Pringles on Mon 16 Mar 2015, 11:54 pm

Well said :clap: :clap:
If life gives you melons then you're probably dyslexic
User avatar
Pringles

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby capercaillie on Tue 17 Mar 2015, 10:47 am

Russ wrote: The Typhoon was a decade late entering service.


Was it really a decade late?

EAP as a technology demonstrator first flew in 1986, this was not a Typhoon at all.

Typhoon itself first flew in 1994 and entered service in 2003, so within 9 years of first flight and attained IOC in 2005.

Not sure of all the time frames initially set out here but I cannot believe we would have expected Typhoon into service in 1993, with EAP having flown just seven years earlier?

The F-35 is on a similar time frame, slightly faster to date so far, X-35 flying in 2000, the F-35 having first flown in 2006 and entering service in 2013, although IOC will probably take a little longer due to the new technology.

Maybe its just the technology, but perhaps more worrying, whereas EAP and Typhoon were cranking it around at shows in their infancy just months after first flight, nobody on the ground has seen anything remotely impressive with regards to a display and manoeuvrability from the F-35, in over eight years of flying?
"The surrogate voice of st24"
User avatar
capercaillie

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby IgnatiusJReilly on Tue 17 Mar 2015, 11:01 am

I'm not sure that arguing 'it's not as bad as the last project that was late and cost x times the original projected cost' is much of a defence..

I know this is beyond bleeding edge tech etc. etc. etc. tech but given the design effort & resources being expended, the list of serious issues and critical design flaws described in the Government Oversight report does seem to me to be way beyond what could be reasonably expected at this stage of what is now a fairly mature project..
Eccentric, idealistic, and creative, sometimes to the point of delusion..
IgnatiusJReilly

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby st24 on Tue 17 Mar 2015, 11:35 am

Slightly off topic but anyone see Despatches last night? Fascinating look at the current state of UK defences. A little bit of scaremongering but the sighting of Russian subs and carriers 30 miles off the Scottish Coast being monitored by some Trawlers was comical. Our largest carriers ever having just 8 F-35s, to a maximum of 12 each if and when they both enter full service. Pathetic. Yet more spin about us projecting our global influence when we can't even look after our own air space and territorial waters 20-30 miles off shore.
You caaan't trust the system... Maaan!
User avatar
st24

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Vodka on Tue 17 Mar 2015, 12:19 pm

nobody on the ground has seen anything remotely impressive with regards to a display and manoeuvrability from the F-35, in over eight years of flying?


Believe it or not, the F35 project is being designed to a 5th generation plus, high active stealth weapons delivery platform. With the Raptor being designed as the only true 5th generation aircraft the advances that have been implemented and others still being assessed for the F35 may well make this aircraft 6th Gen. The F35 in regards "to a display and manoeuvrability" will show nothing of its capabilities whatsoever at an airshow. Have you ever seen the 'Link-16' on the F16 show its abilities at an airshow? No! It is that software that allowed an integrated wing of 4 aircraft evaluate, designate and execute the full weapons system of the F16 at beyond visual ranges, 100nm plus given the conditions to employ at such ranges. This, in both air-air and air ground employment. The F35 has that ability to perform at this range passively and far greater ranges actively. This is just one of the many systems on board that have been successfully integrated already. Just about everything on the F35 is new ground breaking technology in every field. Avionics, airframe and weapons…. with the exception of 'round wheel's'.


China alaone is making significant leaps with its abilities in all fields of the military. That will filter down to other countries.

I know I'd rather be sitting 120nm away knowing I'm not seen and able to get the first and second shot in before the target knows I'm even there.

Just too note The Typhoon was using Tonka engines during its first few years of display before the EJ200 was incorporated. The Tonka F2/F3 even had a lump of cement in the nose cone during its testing and early displays. As much as it was disappointing not to see the F35 at RIAT last year, i was in no way surprised.

I'd rather invest in the right aircraft rather than the wrong aircraft, even if there are challenges on the way.
Vodka

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Paul Waggett on Tue 17 Mar 2015, 12:34 pm

st24 wrote:Slightly off topic but anyone see Despatches last night? Fascinating look at the current state of UK defences. A little bit of scaremongering but the sighting of Russian subs and carriers 30 miles off the Scottish Coast being monitored by some Trawlers was comical. Our largest carriers ever having just 8 F-35s, to a maximum of 12 each if and when they both enter full service. Pathetic. Yet more spin about us projecting our global influence when we can't even look after our own air space and territorial waters 20-30 miles off shore.


To be fair, I thought the production team had kept the sensationalism to a minimum. As st24 points out, the idea that having spent over £6 BILLION of taxpayers money on 2 Carriers that will only carry single figures of fixed wing and only slightly more rotary wing assets, is a disgrace. And then we find out that it's unlikely we'll have the available assets to protect said Carriers if they leave port.

For me, though the state of the Command structure is more worrying - more Admirals than ships, a bill for school fees for the kids of personnel that runs into hundreds of thousands and what can only be described as a circus when it comes to Brigadiers acting as bag carriers to Generals at conferences etc.

And to cap it all, in the not too distant future, the crowd at Wembley will outnumber our ground forces..........
Paul Waggett

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby jon93 on Tue 17 Mar 2015, 12:38 pm

Vodka wrote:I know I'd rather be sitting 120nm away knowing I'm not seen and able to get the first and second shot in before the target knows I'm even there.


Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the latest radars or at the very least the next generation of radars able of detecting the F-35, pretty sure there are numerous articles on the topic.
jon93

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby st24 on Tue 17 Mar 2015, 1:33 pm

Vodka wrote:I know I'd rather be sitting 120nm away knowing I'm not seen and able to get the first and second shot in before the target knows I'm even there.


Like you could do in a Tomcat 30 years ago you mean?? And you could get in a third, fourth, fifth and sixth shot in too! :joystick:
You caaan't trust the system... Maaan!
User avatar
st24

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby capercaillie on Tue 17 Mar 2015, 1:35 pm

Vodka wrote: As much as it was disappointing not to see the F35 at RIAT last year, i was in no way surprised


That was nothing to do with its seeing beyond the edge of space radar and 99th generation capabilities, but rather it caught fire!

Is it shooting down or hitting the right target at 120 miles? The times the mark 1 eyeball has still had to be used for the target to be confirmed, and then if it cannot turn and fight?
"The surrogate voice of st24"
User avatar
capercaillie

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby john001 on Tue 17 Mar 2015, 1:37 pm

jon93 wrote:
Vodka wrote:I know I'd rather be sitting 120nm away knowing I'm not seen and able to get the first and second shot in before the target knows I'm even there.


Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the latest radars or at the very least the next generation of radars able of detecting the F-35, pretty sure there are numerous articles on the topic.



Quite - people omit that radar technology is rapidly advancing as well.
john001

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby john001 on Tue 17 Mar 2015, 1:51 pm

Vodka wrote:

I know I'd rather be sitting 120nm away knowing I'm not seen and able to get the first and second shot in before the target knows I'm even there.

.



Then what? If we are talking about Russia then you get overwhelmed by numbers oh and there's now nowhere to land....

Its all academic and merely money for politicians to buy votes with jobs in technology and factories. If there is a war whoever is losing will push the button we all know it. But will there be one? Will Russia ever want to invade the Uk - what the hell for? If we are drawn into war it will be because we choose to defend the right of someone elses democracy - again what for? - because it is not the same as our democracy or the Americans? The only aircraft we need these days are ones to lob bombs at those with a limited ability to shoot back and in a few years they can all be unmanned. All we are doing with this is feeding corporate USA. We should be creating opportunities in the Uk for the people of the UK.
john001

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Wissam24 on Tue 17 Mar 2015, 1:58 pm

john001 wrote:
jon93 wrote:
Vodka wrote:I know I'd rather be sitting 120nm away knowing I'm not seen and able to get the first and second shot in before the target knows I'm even there.


Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the latest radars or at the very least the next generation of radars able of detecting the F-35, pretty sure there are numerous articles on the topic.



Quite - people omit that radar technology is rapidly advancing as well.


There are quite a few people in the industry who argue that the "stealth" capabilities in modern design - including the B-2 - are seriously exaggerated and unnecessarily hyped up and kept "secret".
Twitter: @samwise24 | Flickr: samwise24 | Shamelessly copying LN Strike Eagle's avatar ideas since 2016
User avatar
Wissam24
UKAR Staff

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Russ on Tue 17 Mar 2015, 1:59 pm

capercaillie wrote:
Russ wrote: The Typhoon was a decade late entering service.


Was it really a decade late?

EAP as a technology demonstrator first flew in 1986, this was not a Typhoon at all.

Typhoon itself first flew in 1994 and entered service in 2003, so within 9 years of first flight and attained IOC in 2005.

Not sure of all the time frames initially set out here but I cannot believe we would have expected Typhoon into service in 1993, with EAP having flown just seven years earlier?

The F-35 is on a similar time frame, slightly faster to date so far, X-35 flying in 2000, the F-35 having first flown in 2006 and entering service in 2013, although IOC will probably take a little longer due to the new technology.

The EFA as it was called back then, was originally planned to be operational from 1996 to replace the Jaguar and Tornado F3. Obviously that soon slipped.

I wouldn't consider the EAP, X-35 or YF-22 for that matter, to be first flights. They are tech demonstrators.

capercaillie wrote:Maybe its just the technology, but perhaps more worrying, whereas EAP and Typhoon were cranking it around at shows in their infancy just months after first flight, nobody on the ground has seen anything remotely impressive with regards to a display and manoeuvrability from the F-35, in over eight years of flying?

I seem to remember similar criticisms levelled at the RAF Typhoon display (in 2004) and the USAF F-22 display (prior to 2006). Both of which fit into a similar time scale for the F-35.
User avatar
Russ

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Russ on Tue 17 Mar 2015, 2:05 pm

Wissam24 wrote:
john001 wrote:
jon93 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the latest radars or at the very least the next generation of radars able of detecting the F-35, pretty sure there are numerous articles on the topic.



Quite - people omit that radar technology is rapidly advancing as well.


There are quite a few people in the industry who argue that the "stealth" capabilities in modern design - including the B-2 - are seriously exaggerated and unnecessarily hyped up and kept "secret".

Where are these articles? Of course radar technology is advancing, but so is stealth - it's an endless cycle.


Can someone please answer the following? If stealth technology is or is becoming obsolete, why are Russia, China, Japan, plus new UCAV designs (X-47B, nEUROn and Taranis etc) all developing low observable designs? :question:
User avatar
Russ

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby jon93 on Tue 17 Mar 2015, 2:16 pm

Russ wrote:Where are these articles? Of course radar technology is advancing, but so is stealth - it's an endless cycle.


Here's one, not the one I was thinking of but it brings up the issue. http://aviationweek.com/defense/prolife ... -35-follow
jon93

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Wissam24 on Tue 17 Mar 2015, 2:21 pm

Russ wrote:
Wissam24 wrote:
john001 wrote:
jon93 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the latest radars or at the very least the next generation of radars able of detecting the F-35, pretty sure there are numerous articles on the topic.



Quite - people omit that radar technology is rapidly advancing as well.


There are quite a few people in the industry who argue that the "stealth" capabilities in modern design - including the B-2 - are seriously exaggerated and unnecessarily hyped up and kept "secret".

Where are these articles? Of course radar technology is advancing, but so is stealth - it's an endless cycle.


Can someone please answer the following? If stealth technology is or is becoming obsolete, why are Russia, China, Japan, plus new UCAV designs (X-47B, nEUROn and Taranis etc) all developing low observable designs? :question:


Here are some:

https://cdfai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/02/ ... -good-for/

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military ... /22949703/

http://hushkit.net/2015/03/06/killing-t ... bert-dorr/

They are making them as they currently have no aircraft with stealth features. New UCAVS likewise. However, the argument is that it's overrated and much more easily defeated than people think.
Twitter: @samwise24 | Flickr: samwise24 | Shamelessly copying LN Strike Eagle's avatar ideas since 2016
User avatar
Wissam24
UKAR Staff

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby capercaillie on Tue 17 Mar 2015, 2:37 pm

Russ wrote:
capercaillie wrote:
Russ wrote: The Typhoon was a decade late entering service.


Was it really a decade late?

EAP as a technology demonstrator first flew in 1986, this was not a Typhoon at all.

Typhoon itself first flew in 1994 and entered service in 2003, so within 9 years of first flight and attained IOC in 2005.

Not sure of all the time frames initially set out here but I cannot believe we would have expected Typhoon into service in 1993, with EAP having flown just seven years earlier?

The F-35 is on a similar time frame, slightly faster to date so far, X-35 flying in 2000, the F-35 having first flown in 2006 and entering service in 2013, although IOC will probably take a little longer due to the new technology.

The EFA as it was called back then, was originally planned to be operational from 1996 to replace the Jaguar and Tornado F3. Obviously that soon slipped.

I wouldn't consider the EAP, X-35 or YF-22 for that matter, to be first flights. They are tech demonstrators.

capercaillie wrote:Maybe its just the technology, but perhaps more worrying, whereas EAP and Typhoon were cranking it around at shows in their infancy just months after first flight, nobody on the ground has seen anything remotely impressive with regards to a display and manoeuvrability from the F-35, in over eight years of flying?

I seem to remember similar criticisms levelled at the RAF Typhoon display (in 2004) and the USAF F-22 display (prior to 2006). Both of which fit into a similar time scale for the F-35.


EFA was never more than a big plastic thing that sat at trade shows, with the end of the Cold War ( :ninja: ) its development was protracted, Typhoon was eventually born, there was less urgency.

I merely mention EAP and X-35 as they were fore runners of some of the technology that led to the Typhoon and F-35, I believe my post was clear on that, in the latter's case it certainly did as it was a project fight between the companies to design and build the new all singing all dancing F-35. It was put in to illustrate time scales for putting technology into a feasible working warplane. 1996 was never going to happen considering when the actual Typhoon first flew.

RAF Typhoon displays have never been great, but at least they have rolled, looped and pulled G since their inception, as did the demonstrators in the 1990s with Tornado engines from their initial displays at Paris, Berlin, Farnborough etc. As anyone who has seen the videos of the F-35 "display" will testify a flat flythrough and a hover is little better than the "Flying Bedstead" in the mid 1950s. As a modern fighter 8 years into its life....... :dunno:

A lot of faith is being put into a very small number of aircraft at a time when we are being stretched thinner and thinner.
"The surrogate voice of st24"
User avatar
capercaillie

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Vodka on Tue 17 Mar 2015, 2:55 pm

Like you could do in a Tomcat 30 years ago you mean?? And you could get in a third, fourth, fifth and sixth shot in too!


Actually to clarify the Tomcat 6 shot Phoenix test. It was only ever carried out once, 5 out of 6 actually found their targets. Those targets were not using any evasive maneouvering or counter measures. Flying directly at the firing Tomcat, the targets were in the optimum use of the Doppler shift radar having significant variance in the target distance. All they had to do was fly 90 degrees to the oncoming Tomcat and maintain a small variance in the range and they would have defeated the Phoenix simply. The semi-active radar of the Tomact would have easily brought it into range of any other fighter in the area in real life scenario. Of course any real life scenario rarely ever involves a 1v1 / 1v6 back. It would have been at least a twin ship Tomcat formation. The Phoenix test was simply a sales ploy for the bigwigs to continue investment into the AIM54 project. As I always say, listen to half what a salesman tells you, believe a quarter of that and you'll be in the ball park :wink:

Further too this, the Phoenix and Tomcat combination was designed from the first day with the concept of shooting down TU16, 95's and then later on TU22's carrying AS4 Kitchen (Kh22). Either shooting down the platform of the weapon itself. It was only through Vietnams lacklustre display by the USAF F4's that the Tomcat was only then considered too carry Sidewinder and Sparrow combination. The F35 is being designed to be flexible in all fields and perform well in all. Many lessons, hopefully have been learned with this approach. The F16 is an excellent example of flexibility in something that was never designed to be. There have been notable people in the aviation industry literally condemn this ethos, flexibility means compromise.. The F-15 eagle, F16 falcon, F-18 Hornet has proved them wrong in that each time!

The Aim 54 test can be easily likened to The f22 tests 10 years ago. Red Flag excerices has seen many 2(f22) v 12 simulated firing scenarios with the F22 having 95% kill ratios against F-15's and 16's which were manoeuvring and employing ECM.

People are also looking at the F35 as a single project. Look at all the technology that is being built from the ground up. How much of that technology will be introduced into the UCAv's etc? Land and sea borne assets too.

We have been flying against hundred of air defence systems and defeating them. Suddenly there's a 'rumour' of an anti stealth radar system and the F35 is obsolete? yeah right. Pop a B2 in full penetration mode close enough to most radar systems it will be tracked. Stealth is all about exploiting the weakness in multiple Air defence regimes not about being invisible
Vodka

Next

Return to Aviation Waffle

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], jasonT1981, Jimbib, neilatter, robterry99, Skymonster, Xm657 and 22 guests