Pentagon Grounds F-35 Fleet After Runway Fire

JSF is garbage, dead meat. Russian T-50 goes into service in 2016. Large Russian fighters have large radar, JSF has small radar. Larger radar is always better than smaller radar for early detection. There is no stealth anymore. US already uses a combination of X band and S band radar, S band locates the object, the X band iis used to fire missiles precisely. Russia, China and the UK already can defeat stealth. So can the latest version of the Saab Gripen, with it's infrared sensors imported from Scotland.
China now makes their own single crystal turbine blades. Russia and China will have equivalent engines to the US within 10 years for certain, perhaps within 5 years. China has drastically ramped up their use of Rhenium, indicating their new engines are going into production.
US has now purchased over 100 mistake JSFs which may or may not be able to be reworked at potentially great expense.
There are still technical problems with the B version, including the clutch, the driveshaft and the roll posts. After decades of design and development going back to around 1991. Does any one want to make a bet that these problems are really solvable, if they haven't been solved after so many years?
Payload - two missiles two bombs for the A and the C. For the B, two missiles and two small bombs. Not much of a strike fighter with that payload. And two missiles for defense, when the hit rate in visual range is around 50%?
JSF has been in development so long, it has become obsolete before it even could be made to work, if it is even possible to get if working.
As Boeing has pointed out, lets say the JSF goes and drops its two bombs on a mission against a country that has weak air defenses. On the way out, any Russian fighter, even the Mig21 from the 1960s can shoot it down as there is no stealth for its exhaust.
Slow acceleration from Mach .8 to Mach 1.2 might be its worst shortcoming among many.
And yes, much of the sensors and software from JSF can be installed on new versions of legacy fighters.
The US has only one competitive fighter for the future, the F-22.

Just because the F-35 is going to bring some very impressive equipment into play...don't kid yourselves for a second, a great deal of this 'investment' is making a very small number of people very, very wealthy.

Also, Canada employs CF-118's because our government never had the balls to do what should have been done. A) Pony up for aircraft that actually suits our needs. B) Rekindle our own aero industry and build our own. C) Buy from non NATO members and license build in Canada.

originally posted by: peck420
Just because the F-35 is going to bring some very impressive equipment into play...don't kid yourselves for a second, a great deal of this 'investment' is making a very small number of people very, very wealthy.

Also, Canada employs CF-118's because our government never had the balls to do what should have been done. A) Pony up for aircraft that actually suits our needs. B) Rekindle our own aero industry and build our own. C) Buy from non NATO members and license build in Canada.

It's beyond government- it's part of the Canadian deepstate itself. The Canadian state signed away our indigenous military R&D to the Americans through a military-industrial "free-trade" pact in the 1950s.

A few years ago I grilled some politician running for federal NDP leadership on the F-35 issue. I asked him what he would do to get rid of the project. He claimed he had no idea of the issues at stake, so in front of hundreds of people I described that the only practical use the F-35 would be to us is for more imperialist wars, like our air campaign on Libya. He claimed I knew so much on the issue that I should work for the federal NDP as a defence advisor. He was sweating big time.

I can't remember that guy's name but obviously Mulcair got the NDP leadership. Last time I saw Mulcair he wouldn't let me ask any questions at a rally (I was going to grill him on Arctic sovereignty), but I got him to reluctantly sign my copy of Marx's Capital that I happened to have with me lol

According to a report by Rand Corporation, the JSF is "Double Inferior".

It "can't turn, can't climb and can't run".

www.youtube.com...

It recent war games it's vulnerability was compared to "clubbing baby seals".

a reply to: Psynic

Too bad the F-35 hasn't been actually involved in any war games, other than using computer simulations. It's far from being at that stage in its development, and it's funny that the pilots actually say that it is equal to an F-16 with a similar payload in maneuverability, and equal to the F-18 in energy bleed and acceleration. That was also not "recent", as the RAND report was done in 2012, which is when the comment was allegedly originally made.

They are currently looking at the third stage turbine as the cause of the fire. They are not allowed to run any F135 engine until after the investigation completes. This marks the second time there has been a problem found in that turbine, on an F-35A. A half inch crack was found in a turbine on AF2 last year at Edwards during testing.

a reply to: Psynic

He said the airforce wanted something like an F-35 to be designed for them but he designed the F-16 instead .

I would say the F-16 has well proven the logic of that position.

Almost every time the F-16 has gone into combat it has been carrying a huge amount of external stores which provide some of the functionality that the F-35 has built-in. External tanks. Targeting pods. The newest F-16s often have conformal tanks to add fuel capacity, often the newest two seat variants have a large dorsal spine to cram all the extra electronics in. The extreme side of concept that Pierre Sprey supports is largely fading away, even on the F-16.

I don't think the problem is necessarily with multirole aircraft. The F-16, F/A-18, Gripen, Rafale, and arguably even the Eurofighter are multirole. About the only western aircraft that isn't really multirole is maybe the F-15C and F-22 - the days of purpose built aircraft are for the most part over except for very large Air Forces who can afford it.

The difference with the F-35 is it has essentially everything it will ever require inbuilt probably to maintain stealth characteristics across most missions. It is really great the F-35 has a large internal fuel capacity (almost as much fuel as in the F-22, yet the jet is over 10,000 pounds lighter), decent internal payload capacity, and has the best sensors and avionics of any fighter aircraft by far. The real disadvantage is that when functionality for some missions is no longer required, like many missions that aren't attack, sensors or fuel capacity cannot be removed to save weight. Obviously the STOVL and CV variants have from what I understand compromised the design somewhat.

So, the real question isn't about being multirole or not. That's a given. It's really a question of whether a multirole stealth aircraft with everything inbuilt is better suited to the requirements of an airforce versus a flexible non-stealthy "barebone" platform that's has a wide capacity for different external stores.

IMO a multirole stealth aircraft will generally end up like the F-35, to keep it stealthy everything has to be crammed into it. But, I wonder how much better it could have ended up if the STOVL variant never existed and some of the inbuilt functionality requirements were relaxed somewhat. Any ideas? Then it becomes a question of what to do with the USMC, RN, and so forth.

Canada needs long range interceptors to defend her territory,

Eurofighter is the only aircraft that comes to mind. It's also expensive. Does it meet all the requirements the RCAF has?

a reply to: C0bzz

Eurofighter would be an adequate choice. However a "modernized" Arrow that some military brass were proposing would be best.

Someone at Boeing must have overheard us chatting and has recommended this for my viewing.

I think I'm supposed to post it here?

www.youtube.com...

Let's see what Lockhead has to say about it.

The JSF is fundamentally flawed. The LiftFan required a wide waist without enough coke bottle shape. So all three variants are aerodynamically flawed. Interestingly, the used car salesmen at Lockheed make much ado about a helmet that provides situation awareness within visual range, yet all the while they are saying only beyond visual range combat has any future. There are so many lines of software code it is impossible to maintain. The US will not export the full JSF stealth capability outside the US, so export JSF will be even more flawed than the US JSF.
If the JSF version B is demonstrated at Farnborough, there will be no vertical landings. Wonder why not? Is JSF now a STO fighter, not a STOVL fighter?

a reply to: Matt1951

The US will not export the full JSF stealth capability outside the US, so export JSF will be even more flawed than the US JSF.

No, this isn't correct.

. There are so many lines of software code it is impossible to maintain

The avionics will be incredible when they finally work properly.

If the JSF version B is demonstrated at Farnborough, there will be no vertical landings. Wonder why not? Is JSF now a STO fighter, not a STOVL fighter?

STOVL has already been demonstrated. If you run a search you can probably find the real answer.

The rest is fine.

a reply to: Psynic

Old video, the scenario it paints is mostly incorrect.

The F-35A isn't likely going to be significantly different to the F/A-18F in terms of pure aerodynamic performance. Actually the F/A-18E/F had some difficulties during development, it was advertised as being a relatively minor enhancement to the F/A-18 A/B/C/D despite being an almost entirely new aircraft. It ended up having wing drop issues. Speaking of design sacrifices, weapon clearance was an issue on the F/A-18 E/F so to fix that they canted the wing pylons out by several degrees which adds a fair amount of drag (and looks goofy). Aerodynamic performance is slightly inferior to the F/A-18 A/B/C/D. The Super Hornet also has design sacrifices in that the structure is designed for an aircraft carrier.

The F-35 has more advanced sensors, avionics, and stealth. Yes, it is more expensive and risky. I don't agree that stealth necessarily means smaller control surfaces. The F-22A is extremely maneuverable and extremely stealthy. Stealth certainly does constrain the design in other ways as I outlined in my previous post.

If you want to look at something that really beats the pants off the F-35 in terms of kinematics, look at the F-15SE and Eurofighter. I don't know about the F-15SE but the tranche 3 Eurofighter isn't exactly cheap.

Regarding Australia, we bought 24 Super Hornets to replace the F-111. The F-35 was originally supposed to replace the F-111, but it got delayed, so we got the Super Hornet instead. I think it was a good purchase since the Super Hornet has had a very trouble free entry into RAAF. 12 Growlers are also on their way. Australia has also committed to 72 F-35s to replace the legacy F/A-18s, the first is supposed to roll out of the factory this month.

From my Australian armchair expert perspective, I also haven't seen the need for 108 jet fighters (24 E/F, 12 G, 72 F-35) justified properly in the first place. But if we are to get them, I can see why the F/A-18F and F-35 were chosen. Also, I think the purchases of these aircraft should be cut somewhat to save money during our current budget "crisis".

I am not American, but from what I understand they are very committed to the F-35.

So again, in all, not an amazing video. IMHO Boeing should have come up with this enhanced Super Hornet about 10 years ago and really pushed it back then.

Also, Riccardo Traven can put on a hell of an airshow in the F/A-18 E/F.

www.youtube.com...



a reply to: Vovin

I don't think a 60 year old design is a reasonable suggestion. I assume Canada needs something that can do more than simply intercept aircraft.

originally posted by: Matt1951
If the JSF version B is demonstrated at Farnborough, there will be no vertical landings. Wonder why not? Is JSF now a STO fighter, not a STOVL fighter?

Because they prefer not to melt the runway and prevent anything else from taking off or landing. The engine in the F-35 is the most powerful engine ever put into a single engine aircraft, and the exhaust temperatures while hovering or landing prove that. So they're not going to land, and risk damaging the runway.

originally posted by: Vovin
a reply to: C0bzz

Eurofighter would be an adequate choice. However a "modernized" Arrow that some military brass were proposing would be best.

A modernized Arrow would be a bigger boondoggle than the original Arrow...possibly even bigger than the F-35, in which we will at least get something very cool.

Canada doesn't need another white elephant if we can't even buy enough F-35's for our requirements.

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: Psynic

Old video, the scenario it paints is mostly incorrect.

The F-35A isn't likely going to be significantly different to the F/A-18F in terms of pure aerodynamic performance.

No more different than say an F-4 and an F-104.

a reply to: Psynic

Compare maximum speed, wing loading, and thrust to weight ratios when both aircraft have the same payload and fuel.

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: Psynic

Compare maximum speed, wing loading, and thrust to weight ratios when both aircraft have the same payload and fuel.

Check, check and check.

That's why the vast majority of Canadians are done with the misnamed, 'Lightning II'.

Not only are American and Canadian Thanksgiving observed on different dates, but we have a completely different idea of what constitutes a 'Turkey'.

Now if the used car salesmen at Lockhead would only get it through their thick skulls that we are plane not interested.

originally posted by: Zaphod58

originally posted by: Matt1951
If the JSF version B is demonstrated at Farnborough, there will be no vertical landings. Wonder why not? Is JSF now a STO fighter, not a STOVL fighter?

Because they prefer not to melt the runway and prevent anything else from taking off or landing. The engine in the F-35 is the most powerful engine ever put into a single engine aircraft, and the exhaust temperatures while hovering or landing prove that. So they're not going to land, and risk damaging the runway.

That is one explanation, another explanation is that perhaps the LiftFan clutch is not working reliably. Realize you get at most one clutch engagement without overheating the clutch, there is no second chance, even if it works as advertised. If the LiftFan system is just dead weight for landing at the airshow, it raises serious questions. As far as heat, Lockheed used to tell us it was not a problem. Now it turns out, JSF can only land on specially made landing pads? The Harrier can land vertically no problem.

a reply to: Matt1951

The F-35 has done vertical landings for several years, including multiple landings in one flight.

It's obvious you've never been around a Harrier, or have much experience on a ramp. The Harrier requires the use of distilled water to hover and land vertically. It also has a diffuse exhaust using four nozzles around the fuselage. That means the exhaust isn't concentrated. The F-35 uses a standard exhaust that concentrates the heat into a small area.

a reply to: Matt1951

Nice FUD.

another explanation is that perhaps the LiftFan clutch is not working reliably.

Or in other words you don't like the previous explanation so you made something up.

Realize you get at most one clutch engagement without overheating the clutch,

Citation needed.

If the LiftFan system is just dead weight for landing at the airshow, it raises serious questions.

Because you made something up?

Now it turns out, JSF can only land on specially made landing pads? The Harrier can land vertically no problem.

So? F-35 isn't the Harrier.