F-35 news roundup

[TaiidanTomcat]

6 weeks is too long. Grab little Timmy right out of 10th grade, give him a quick class on how to fire an automatic weapon and send him on his way.

Its funny you mentioned that, I actually wrote "without quality concerns we can draft anyone 10 years and up to swell the ranks with winning quantity (cannon fodder)" but then deleted it.

Other platforms maybe will be added to take up strength. Maybe more F-18E/F for USN, maybe the USMC will have to adopt F-18/E/F maybe add EA-18G too. Who knows? USAF will muddle through keeping legacy platforms flying or if cost of F-35 get too high and numbers are cut the USAF will have to rethink and maybe invest in the latest variants of F-15E for strength numbers only. Hell maybe they will have to buy more late gen F-16, if F-35 continues to run amok in price and in delivery standards.

I don't know how that will work exactly. FRP will start after the F-18E/F goes OOP. So we would have to restart F-18 production while curtailing JSF production. If we wanted to do that, we could do that right now. Moreover, by the time we have figured out "uh oh, we aren't going to get the number of F-35s we need", the F-18 will have been OOP for a decade at least. For the Marines, A mixed fleet just adds to other expenses and complications as well. and F-18E FY2012 is 67 million an FRP F-35 is going to be around 85 million. The F-18E at that price doesn't include pylons or pods either. So getting it combat capable closes the gap. Growlers of course are even more expensive and require a Kolja in the back seat.

In other words, if its roughly the same anyway buy the F-35.

We won't buy "new old planes" its self defeating. The F-22 being curtailed didn't mean we put F-15Cs back into production, and if that was an option the USAF would still rather spend that money on the F-22. The same thing will happen here.

[GreyGhost]

That was the best you had to assert that the manufacturing quality was so so? And also that performance wasn't anything too great either?

F-22 corrosion, fair enough. Galvanic corrosion when using exotic stealth materials like the Raptor does should have been watched for more closely. Still flies at 60,000 ft and Mach 2.5+. And lessons were learned from F-22 and B-2:

http://www.aviationweek.com/blogs.aspx?plckblogid=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckcontroller=blog&plckscript=blogscript&plckelementid=blogdest&plckblogpage=blogviewpost&plckpostid=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7post:5d5351e5-8a5f-4073-9428-c3129cabdf6a

So, F-35 shot:

The F-35 "airframe cracks", you mean the ones discovered during initial durability testing? The ones caught early enough in durability testing that not only was a fix developed for the existing test aircraft, but a redesign of the airframe was incorporated into the vast bulk of the future fleet that still exists only as hunks of aluminum blocks?

C'mon, man....

As for the Typhoon, I was completely unaware of the Spiegal article...but I do know there have been major manufacturing tolerance issues throughout the program. As for cost, why do you think all the original partners in the consortium are trying to pawn off the money pits to whatever immensely rich Gulf state will go for them? The maintenance cost per flying hour is no secret on the Typhoon. Googling it is left as an exercise for the reader.

You're right Mark, both jets have stellar track records of being on time and under budget ...

They have proven to have had no manufacturing deficiencies either ... My apologies ...

-Gregg

PS. I read about the airframe cracks >>> here <<<...

Edited August 5, 2013 by GreyGhost

[MarkW]

You're right Mark, both jets have stellar track records of being on time and under budget ...

They have proven to have had no manufacturing deficiencies either ... My apologies ...

-Gregg

PS. I read about the airframe cracks >>> here <<<...

Never said they were stellar at everything, but please stick to one attack at a time. Is it quality, or cost/schedule? Manufacturing is just fine, it's the design that has flaws...which are getting fixed. Yes, concurrent programs are a terrible idea, blah blah blah. It is far too late to put that horse back in the barn. And most of those fixes are simple O level retrofits.

To sit back in you arm chair and act like the F-35 or F-22 should have been perfect out of the door when they are truly groundbreaking, yet our European friends with 4th gen designs and even Boeing on the SuperHornet had significant discoveries, is a little unrealistic.

[GreyGhost]

And that's my point, no better quality ...F-22 is, what, 4th gen stealth, how long are we going to hear about poor coatings ? Oh wait, it's already cropping up on F-35 too ...

-Gregg

[MarkW]

Again, arm chair quarterbacking is your point?

You lazily throw out these comments like F-22 stealth coatings have jack squat to do with F-35 coatings (they don't).

You act as if cutting edge technology should work perfectly out of the lab. It doesn't. There is a reason they have a rather extensive test program. By your rationale, there shouldn't be anything found and fixed in test ever, or the program sucks.

The F-35 isn't a redo of F-22. F-35 is creating and discovering a whole new set of problems because nobody had done this sort off thing before.

You've made this point time and again. It comes off as a bit snarky to keep repeating yourself like you could, or most people could, have done better given the circumstances of a program designed to have serious issues. It's real easy to come off as the smart guy in the room when all you do is throw cheap shots. Further, few of the people who got into this mess are around, yet you fail to acknowledge that the people working this mess they didn't create have done a remarkable job of fixing it.

But hey, sit back and enjoy yourself knowing you had no part in getting into or out of the situation as you randomly toss spears.

[GreyGhost]

-Gregg

[Spongebob]

Didn't the B-29, P-51 and F-4U (among many other really, really successful aircraft that pushed the technology bar quite far) all have "rather long and expensive test programs?"

And before I get my arse jumped on about the P-51...it was a hunk of FOD until it got the Merlin engine and only found it's place in the world with the Aux tank...which was promptly removed after the war because the flying qualities with it killed a lot of pilots (acceptable during war, not so much after).

Edited August 7, 2013 by Spongebob

[TaiidanTomcat]

Didn't the B-29, P-51 and F-4U (among many other really, really successful aircraft that pushed the technology bar quite far) all have "rather long and expensive test programs?"

The B-29 especially

http://australianaviation.com.au/2013/08/f-35b-to-head-back-to-sea/

[GreyGhost]

>>> Hi Res <<<

PATUXENT RVIER Md. (Aug. 1, 2013) Test pilot Capt. Michael Kingen flies BF-1, an F-35B Lightning II, during a 500-pound GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided weapon separation test. BF-1 dropped the GBU-12 over the Atlantic Test Ranges from an internal weapons bay. The F-35B is the variant of the Lightning II designed for use by the U.S. Marine Corps, as well as F-35 international partners in the United Kingdom and Italy. The F-35B is capable of short takeoffs and vertical landings to enable air power projection from amphibious ships, ski-jump aircraft carriers and expeditionary airfields. The F-35B is undergoing flight test and evaluation at NAS Patuxent River, Md., prior to delivery to the fleet. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin by Dane Wiedmann/Released)

-Gregg

[MarkW]

News:

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/08/12/dont-ask-alis-yet-f-35-wing-drop-issue-fixed/

[Spongebob]

ALIS is one large and unhappy woman.

[GreyGhost]

Seems like all or most fighter aircraft go through a "wing drop" issue in testing ...

-Gregg

[Alternative 4]

I work for the Government and the printer is supposed to be self aware and order toner when its running out. It never does, so I am not surprised alis doesn't work.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Alternative 4

[GreyGhost]

>>> Article <<<

-Gregg

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/News/NewsArticleDisplay/tabid/3488/Article/148069/marine-test-pilot-makes-first-f-35b-night-landing-at-sea.aspx

Edited August 16, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat

[Mark M.]

That's a pretty awesome picture, right there.

[gb_madcat_sl]

Interesting article on the JSF project.

LINK

Mark

[TaiidanTomcat]

Interesting article on the JSF project.

LINK

Mark

It's David Axe's long and winding quote of every critic of the JSF program (including APA and their garbage simulations) with his own garbage thrown in:

The Marines fell blindly in love with this temperamental new plane, nicknamed Harrier after a low-flying hawk, and schemed to acquire it for their own air wings.

The Navy was the biggest obstacle. The sailing branch controls the Marines’ weapons funding and was not keen to invest in a single-use airplane that only the Corps wanted. At the time the Navy was working with the Air Force on the F-111, an early attempt at a one-size-fits-all jet that the Pentagon believed would replace nearly all older planes with a single, multipurpose model.

Thanks to what Kristy described as “very, very shrewd political maneuvering,” a small group of Marine officers alternately convinced and tricked Congress, the Navy and the U.S. aerospace industry into taking a chance on the Harrier. The Corps ended up buying more than 400 of the compact planes through the 1990s.

The Navy was still working with the F-111 in the 90's??

the whole thing is basically anecdotes from noted critics, with zero access to any actual information. Its a collection of biased hit pieces and the author's own opinion masquerading as fact.

Edited August 16, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat

[Ken Cartwright]

TT, I'm not sure I get your point on the time frame. As far as I can tell, the article is just stating that the Marines started buying the Harrier in the '60s when the Navy was working on the F-111, but kept buying Harriers through the '90s.

[11bee]

It's David Axe's long and winding quote of every critic of the JSF program (including APA and their garbage simulations) with his own garbage thrown in:

The Navy was still working with the F-111 in the 90's??

the whole thing is basically anecdotes from noted critics, with zero access to any actual information. Its a collection of biased hit pieces and the author's own opinion masquerading as fact.

I always thought the Marines made a huge mistake not opting for the F-111. Durable, easy to maintain, can be operated from austere bases close to the front lines, etc, it would have been a great fit with the Corp. Much more so than those silly Harriers.

[TaiidanTomcat]

TT, I'm not sure I get your point on the time frame. As far as I can tell, the article is just stating that the Marines started buying the Harrier in the '60s when the Navy was working on the F-111, but kept buying Harriers through the '90s.

to me at least its poorly worded. not to mention that it doesn't differentiate between the first harriers and the harrier II. The Marines fought a couple battles for the next generation harriers as well. So as far as I am concerned there is still a lot more to the story. Not to mention that one of the problems with this whole thing is the critics he quotes often contradict one another. Sprey is convinced its too complicated, APA thinks it isn't too complicated enough.

[TaiidanTomcat]

I always thought the Marines made a huge mistake not opting for the F-111. Durable, easy to maintain, can be operated from austere bases close to the front lines, etc, it would have been a great fit with the Corp. Much more so than those silly Harriers.

LOL you forgot "cheap" in there as well.

[Horrido]

I think it's also amusing how those dumb, misunderestimated Marines somehow managed to outsmart the Navy, the government, and whoever else to buy a "questionable" aircraft they've put to good use for over forty years (compared to the unparalleled success of the F-111B).

Can't wait to see how they manage to bungle, screw-up, and completely trash a hunk of junk program like the F-35B.

[Ken Cartwright]

to me at least its poorly worded. :thumbsup:/>/> not to mention that it doesn't differentiate between the first harriers and the harrier II. The Marines fought a couple battles for the next generation harriers as well. So as far as I am concerned there is still a lot more to the story. Not to mention that one of the problems with this whole thing is the critics he quotes often contradict one another. Sprey is convinced its too complicated, APA thinks it isn't too complicated enough.

I guess somehow it made sense to me. But simply because I understood their time frame reference doesn't mean I agree with the article. I have seen just about every new aircraft program be heavily criticized before (and shortly after) going into service, but somehow they all become the perfect aircraft compared to what gets developed later ("The F-15 is too big and too expensive! It will get shot down immediately in combat!"/"The F-22 is too big and too expensive, and stealth is just a fad! The F-15s are great, so why do we need the F-22?!")

[TaiidanTomcat]

I think it's also amusing how those dumb, misunderestimated Marines somehow managed to outsmart the Navy, the government, and whoever else to buy a "questionable" aircraft they've put to good use for over forty years (compared to the unparalleled success of the F-111B).

Can't wait to see how they manage to bungle, screw-up, and completely trash a hunk of junk program like the F-35B.

"jarheads" are a truly cunning bunch, constantly scamming and manipulating the "smarter" services, and the pentagon for their own nefarious ends. It has to be embarrassing. "oh did your stealth scout helicopter get canceled? thats tragic, did I mention we just conned everyone into buying a stealthy super sonic hovering stealth fighter? That's not even the best part, the navy is paying for most of them"

I won't bore you with the secret history of how we tricked the brits into creating the harrier either. Freemasons are a secret society created by the Marine Corps.

Edited August 16, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat