F-35 news roundup

[phantom]

Our gap is our fighters are over 35 years old and we no longer have enough left for our assigned commitments. Still think we should just get around 70-90 CF-35As. But that number is not happening.

[11bee]

8 minutes ago, phantom said:

Our gap is our fighters are over 35 years old and we no longer have enough left for our assigned commitments. Still think we should just get around 70-90 CF-35As. But that number is not happening.

Ok...  sorry, I assumed the poster was referring to one of the many US "capability gaps". 

 

 

[Gordon Shumway]

As to this fighter jet situation for Canada, it reminds me of what we use to have back in the day here, a brand of Tea, Red Rose Tea. The commercials  would   use the phrase "Only in Canada you say. Pitty"

 

It is  a pitty though at how our government and in the past many of our governments treat/treated our tax  dollars and  how we spend them on our military. The men and women in Canadian  military  service  deserve much better. Being next door to our US cousins and  its umbrella has allowed our governments to often fail at being responsible for ourselves in terms  of military and security. We are (in governmental  concerns) sorta like that polite, but  kind of obnoxious neighbor, coming over to  borrow   your tools, garden gear, and at  times  a cup of sugar, coffee or a    slab of butter and never  seeming to return the favour or stuff borrowed. In fact to be more worldly   much of the western world   peers  do similar   to the USA.

[TaiidanTomcat]

I'm just curious to see if the whole decision gets punted once again. 

 

[Emvar]

6 hours ago, 11bee said:

Ok...  sorry, I assumed the poster was referring to one of the many US "capability gaps". 

 

 

No.... I'm Canadian...

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/canada-signals-it-will-use-military-equipment-to-resist-us-protectionist-measures

 

Fights on

[Don]

Some reader comments from the link TT posted above regarding the F-35 that made me shake my head (keep in mind these are less then 48hrs old from todays date):

 

"The F-35A is still deep in development, with initial operational test & evaluation still far in the future, and then comes a Milestone C production decision after a determination regarding the system's capability to do what its backers claim that it does.
So Canada is exactly correct to shy away from buying expensive useless F-35 prototypes which even now require over 200 high priority modifications"

 

Another

 

"...airplanes like the F-35 will have to be supported and escorted by specialized electronic warfare aircraft like the Super Hornet-based EA-18G Growler.
Also Boeing has been messing around with a new F-18 model which is cheaper and has even further range the the F-35 or Current F-18's.
..... Next thing your gonna tell us is that the F-35 can replace the A-10. Because Lockeed really said that and people laughed their fool off."

 

Last one (but sadly there are many others...):

 

"we get it, you get a chubby when someone mentions the F-35. Has it gone into full production yet or are they still modifying it. Of all of the modifications that are being made, how many actually meet Canadian requirements or do we have to wait for them to figure those out? Now let's talk price, have they given a firm price for each aircraft or are they continuing to jack the price up to the point that Canada will be able the by 5 maybe 10 with the money that was set aside for the purchase that was first considered? So, let's see, if or when they go into full production and they finally get around to building aircraft for Canada, we should get them when, 2040-2050, at which time they will be obsolete. Good choice, and by the way, it isn't built for Canada's north either."

 

Good little water carriers for the Defense Minister and his boss aren't they...

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

14 hours ago, Don said:

Some reader comments from the link TT posted above regarding the F-35 that made me shake my head (keep in mind these are less then 48hrs old from todays date):

 

"The F-35A is still deep in development, with initial operational test & evaluation still far in the future, and then comes a Milestone C production decision after a determination regarding the system's capability to do what its backers claim that it does.
So Canada is exactly correct to shy away from buying expensive useless F-35 prototypes which even now require over 200 high priority modifications"

 

Another

 

"...airplanes like the F-35 will have to be supported and escorted by specialized electronic warfare aircraft like the Super Hornet-based EA-18G Growler.
Also Boeing has been messing around with a new F-18 model which is cheaper and has even further range the the F-35 or Current F-18's.
..... Next thing your gonna tell us is that the F-35 can replace the A-10. Because Lockeed really said that and people laughed their fool off."

 

Last one (but sadly there are many others...):

 

"we get it, you get a chubby when someone mentions the F-35. Has it gone into full production yet or are they still modifying it. Of all of the modifications that are being made, how many actually meet Canadian requirements or do we have to wait for them to figure those out? Now let's talk price, have they given a firm price for each aircraft or are they continuing to jack the price up to the point that Canada will be able the by 5 maybe 10 with the money that was set aside for the purchase that was first considered? So, let's see, if or when they go into full production and they finally get around to building aircraft for Canada, we should get them when, 2040-2050, at which time they will be obsolete. Good choice, and by the way, it isn't built for Canada's north either."

 

Good little water carriers for the Defense Minister and his boss aren't they...

 

 

 

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest though sadly. 

 

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/poland-to-buy-5th-gen-fighter-jets-around-2025

 

Poland, next up!

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://elpais.com/elpais/2017/06/05/inenglish/1496652196_078384.html?id_externo_rsoc=TW_CC

 

Spain

[11bee]

F-35 flights suspended at Luke due to multiple pilots having hypoxia symptoms during flights.   Navy T-45s are grounded due to similar issues, also have them occurring with F-18's.  

 

What the heck is going on with these O2 systems? 

[Ken Cartwright]

It's been said before, but you'd think O2 systems have been needed and in use for decades, so I just don't understand how they can all be having problems now.  It'd be like all modern cars suddenly having water pump problems or something.

[11bee]

16 minutes ago, Ken Cartwright said:

It's been said before, but you'd think O2 systems have been needed and in use for decades, so I just don't understand how they can all be having problems now.  It'd be like all modern cars suddenly having water pump problems or something.

The Russians did it!

[phantomdriver]

 thought the OBOGS problem had been solved with the F-22???

Bearing in mind, the F18/ F-35 systems are likely to be similar, how come it's still persistent?

[habu2]

F-35, F/A-18E/F and F-22 all use an OBOGS made by Honeywell so they may be "similar" but due to their integration into different platforms, the operation and/or control of the OBOGS are not the same. Aircraft are complex systems made up of complex components, you have to look at the system, not just the component.

 

An example, both F-15A/B and F-16A/B used P&W F-100 engines, but only F-15s had problems shedding what we now call "turkey feathers". The same parts on nearly identical engines yet only one application had the problem.  Why? Because the problem was specific to it's application, in this case a difference in airflow in the aft fuselage area of each aircraft type.  

 

Another example, a Mk-82 is a Mk-82, so why the need to do weapon separation tests on each aircraft type to carry it? Because of the different application with different systems.

 

Same analogies applies to OBOGS.

Edited June 10, 2017 by habu2
I kant tipe

[habu2]

16 hours ago, Ken Cartwright said:

It's been said before, but you'd think O2 systems have been needed and in use for decades, so I just don't understand how they can all be having problems now.  It'd be like all modern cars suddenly having water pump problems or something.

 

O2 systems over the past decades have changed tremendously. OBOGS is the current implementation of O2 systems, preceded by LOX, which was preceded by GOX. (which was preceded by hypoxia...    )

 

All modern cars don't use the same water pumps either. A Honda pump won't work on a Ford, and a pump for a Chevy 4-cylinder engine won't work on a Chevy V8.  O2 systems on different aircraft fit this same analogy. 

[11bee]

2 hours ago, habu2 said:

 

All modern cars don't use the same water pumps either. A Honda pump won't work on a Ford, and a pump for a Chevy 4-cylinder engine won't work on a Chevy V8.  O2 systems on different aircraft fit this same analogy. 

Got it.   So why then are we seeing all these different aircraft being grounded at the same time, after years (in some cases decades)  of flying with no issues?  

[Scooby]

The systems are certainly similar, yes they are modified for different aircraft although most the components at interchangeable. New technology has growing pains. Testing doesn't always find all faults that will be encountered.

[habu2]

1 hour ago, 11bee said:

Got it.   So why then are we seeing all these different aircraft being grounded at the same time, after years (in some cases decades)  of flying with no issues?  

 

Obviously something changed - a maintenance procedure, a supplier issue, even a software upgrade... that's what they have to figure out.

 

If it's local to one aircraft type at one base (Luke F-35s in this case) then obviously something changed there recently that hasn't changed elsewhere.

 

Just pointing out possibilities, not pointing fingers.

[Scooby]

Or the failures occurred there first. Every fleet has lead the fleet aircraft. Which is often where time dependent failures occur first.

Edited June 10, 2017 by Scooby

[MarkW]

47 minutes ago, Scooby said:

Or the failures occurred there first. Every fleet has lead the fleet aircraft. Which is often where time dependent failures occur first.

Right, which is why this happened at Eglin!  Oh, wait...

 

The OBOGS issue in the F-22 was well known during F-35 development.  It wasn't anticipated that there would be the same problems given the differences in the systems. So on the bright side, once again JSF has shown great innovation.

[TaiidanTomcat]

On 6/10/2017 at 0:29 PM, 11bee said:

Got it.   So why then are we seeing all these different aircraft being grounded at the same time, after years (in some cases decades)  of flying with no issues?  

 

 

No issues? 

Edited June 11, 2017 by TaiidanTomcat

[11bee]

Have the hornets and T-45's had recurring O2 system issues over their service lives? I thought this was a relatively new phenomena for these aircraft?  

[TaiidanTomcat]

18 minutes ago, 11bee said:

Have the hornets and T-45's had recurring O2 system issues over their service lives? I thought this was a relatively new phenomena for these aircraft?  

 

Hornets have been having these issues for decades. I think they even lost a few in the early 1990s to O2 issues. And the navy admiral investigating the T-45s says they have been investigating for years now.

 

Another reason might be improved and more sensitive diagnoses In general. Or it's LOX. Or a combination of factors... 

Edited June 11, 2017 by TaiidanTomcat

[Scooby]

2 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

 

No issues? 

 

It took years for the problem to be discovered. I would hazard to guess they all went through development without knowing it was occurring. I'm not saying it wasn't an issue. It certainly became more prevalent.

[MarkW]

 Let's also not take the naïve and kindhearted view that the services were all over this issue when it first arose. F-22 issues were reported for a long time before the Air Force finally took action. Bottom-line, this is a very expensive problem to fix, and the services to some extent have all hoped it would just "go away".

 

When I spoke at length to one F-22 pilot who had flown flight test years before, he commented there be times where he would go over the cockpit recordings, and would not recall actually saying what he said during the flight. This is a trained flight test pilot. And this was back in 2011, when the issue really started making the news.  He certainly was not the first, nor was he alone in having this issue, but the Air Force did try to ignore it as much as they could.