It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pentagon Grounds F-35 Fleet After Runway Fire

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   



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.


They got that clutch working years ago, it was pretty key to the lift fan design (obviously) and will have been heavily tested ever since on the ground rigs. There is no problem with the clutch, its a very advance piece of engineering.




posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FraternitasSaturni

That's because most of the people saying it have no idea what they're talking about. There are technologies on it that are desperately needed.


So why not put them on a more capable airframe?

I think what we have here is a culmination of lobbyists and idiocy and the US and allies are going to pay a very heavy price for this combat turkey

The F-35 will be like shooting rats In a barrel for any country who purchases the Russian SU-30 35 PAK-FA and just about any other allied 4th gen,

With new Radars there is no such thing as stealth either


edit on 5-7-2014 by TritonTaranis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TritonTaranis

And what platform is that?

I hear that a lot about stealth, and yet there are aircraft in development that make current stealth aircraft look like legacy aircraft on radar.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chiftel
Maybe you should retrofit a proper engine to that F-35 lemon of yours?

May I suggest the Saturn AL-31f:



It doubt the AL-41f1 is for sale:



Oh, wait! Those are Russian engines...



I don't know of any Russian engine or aircraft as high tek and complex as the F-35 and I don't think the Russians are anywhere near it... but the last laugh for Russia would be they don't need to be, Russia has always been good at countering US tech with a 10times less costly counter weapon, the problem of course is she's never ahead and don't sell out to big corporations who brib officials for contracts

For instance... We all know the YF-23 was far better than the F-22



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: TritonTaranis

And what platform is that?

I hear that a lot about stealth, and yet there are aircraft in development that make current stealth aircraft look like legacy aircraft on radar.



I think you know as well as I'd do there are better platforms and airframes available, why the F-35? Within the next decade or so it's utterly SNIPPED

And VHF radar is and news for the stealth in which the F-35 relies on heavily



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

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.


The Arrow was not a "white elephant".

And I said modernized Arrow. Have you guys not heard about when some CF officers were rebelling against the F-35 purchase, and were offering designs for a new, Canadian-made 4.5-5th gen interceptor?

The only thing the F-35 is good at as a CF jet is shooting at targets that American recon units and AWACS are targeting.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TritonTaranis

VHF is not the be all end all it's cracked up to be.

As for the F-35, name a platform that could be operational within 10 years that the technology it brings could be mounted on. There is nothing out there that could reach IOC in two to three years, and FOC in five.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: IamSirDrinksalot

There are ongoing reports of clutch and drive shaft problems.
www.news.com.au... o-fail/story-e6frfrnr-1226950254330



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz
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.


If you can't demonstrate a capability in 2014 (vertical landing), considering the many years of development, it raises questions as to the whether there are ongoing problems. First of all JSF should be able to land on rough fields. The Harrier can. Some expeditionary aircraft - NOT. Did the US Marines lose this capability going with JSF? Not being able to demonstrate STOVL because one needs a special landing pad is a lame excuse.

www.news.com.au... o-fail/story-e6frfrnr-1226950254330
This article states there are ongoing problems with the LiftFan system. There are other online articles stating the same.
Here is another article, read about the clutch and driveshaft.
aviationweek.com...

As far as clutch re-engagements of the dry clutch, you can research that one on your own. Since you know the program so well.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 02:22 AM
link   



For instance... We all know the YF-23 was far better than the F-22


In what ways? Speed and stealth? cause that's about it. And we haven't seen the end of the YF-23 in my opinion


The real reason I believe the F-22 won is because it was more agile in its purpose, which is air to air fighting, and more suitable for the Navy in the program that they were shooting for but dropped after the competition. And, at the time of course, Lockheed's management was better than Northrops.
edit on 6-7-2014 by boomer135 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz
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.


F-22 requires 1 million? lines of software code. JSF requires 9 million? for onboard and another 20 million? for ground equipment (60 minutes used something like 30 million). "The avionics will be incredible when they finally work properly"- it is not just a question of how advanced the avionics will be by the time a very late introduction occurs, it is a question of maintaining all that software code. Ongoing software problems: aviationweek.com...

As far as how stealthy export JSF will be, the arguments go back and forth on line. Jane's Aircraft leaves the impression export JSF will not be as stealthy as US JSF.


"By Bill Sweetman

Up to US$1 billion of the projected cost overrun on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is attributable to the development of 'anti-tamper' (AT) technology to protect stealth features on the JSF, together with a 'sanitized' and probably less stealthy export configuration of the fighter.

Some of this overrun is reflected in a supplemental contract awarded to Lockheed Martin in November 2003, valued at US$603 million and covering the development of an "international partner version" for the JSF.

Building export JSFs with less sensitive - and less effective - low observable (LO) features is practicable because the primary structure of the JSF is conventional, with most of the LO systems being added at the end of the assembly line. The program office has consistently declined to clarify US policy on this issue, and people close to the program have made conflicting statements.

Most recently, however, a JSF program official said that the export versions "would look the same" - implying that materials under the surface might be different. Another source says that "all JSFs will have stealth features" but will not confirm that all of them will be identical in LO performance. The November contract's reference to an "international partner version" also suggests that such an approach is being taken. The value of the contract would reflect the need to conduct a separate radar cross-section (RCS) validation program.

The clear implication is that the 'international' JSF would have a larger RCS than the US version, would be easier to detect by hostile radars and would consequently be more susceptible to attack. That, in turn, would have consequences for the overall effectiveness of the fighter. Like other LO aircraft, it does not carry active jamming equipment or a towed decoy, and it cannot use high-off-boresight air-to-air missiles when in stealth mode.

JSF is the first US stealth aircraft to be offered for export. Rules on the export of stealth technologies, as well as of dual-use technologies that are important to stealth, are not made by the JSF program office, but by senior Pentagon leaders, who define disclosure policy with the help of the Low Observables Executive Committee (LO-EXCOM). The EXCOM includes representatives from the services, intelligence agencies and all major stealth programs, including 'black' or unacknowledged programs.

The use of less sensitive materials on export JSFs is likely to be accompanied by a range of new AT measures, an area that has received increasing attention since 11 September 2001. The objective is "to protect critical technologies in US weapon systems that may be sold to foreign governments or that could possibly fall into enemy hands".

sourced from www.janes.com"


From aviationweek.com...

"Some of the issues identified are going to present more problems – and indeed, in some areas the F-35 program office has given up and accepted lower performance. Sustained g and transonic (Mach 0.8 to 1.2) acceleration specifications have been relaxed for all three variants — indicative of less-than-expected specific excess power, most likely due to higher drag."

"The F-35C’s transonic acceleration has changed dramatically, increasing by 43 sec. compared to a 65-sec. threshold requirement. Operationally, one impact of this change is on the time at supersonic speed available in any given mission profile: a long, full-power transonic acceleration burns a lot of fuel."



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Well Ive wrote this in a few different places but here's my take on the F-35, why it sucks, why we need it, and why its a better aircraft that the government is letting everyone on....


Well heres my opinion of it (not based on any fact, so to speak, just what I think)

Why it sucks:
1. concurrency
2. were trying to build three different aircraft with different roles and trying to keep everything common to the three aircraft. This is where they went wrong. Before the first one was even built. Honestly, the three services would have been better off going their separate ways and fielding three different aircraft. If that happened, I think that the A model for the airforce would have been an awesome aircraft. Too much was sacrificed on it to accommodate the other two models.
3. Kind of falls in with number 2, but they are trying to put three or four different missions into one aircraft. Now if this works LM will look like freaking geniuses, but if for some reason it fails, its gonna cost them in the long run.

Why we need it:
1. Zaph...you know this one. Current fighter fleet is quickly coming to their demise. The F-15's, F-16's, and even the loved A-10 need to be replaced in the near future (I'm a huge A-10 fan so don't go there about what congress did. lol). They should have gone about replacing it a different way from the start, but its not too terribly late (actually it probably is).
2. Regardless of what people who don't know what they are talking about in the media are saying, the F-35 will only be rivaled by the F-22, and even the 22 will lose in specific circumstances to the 35. People get so caught up in media reports from some guy in his moms basement reading the internet that they start to believe what they here. Don't forget that most of the F-35's performance, stealth, avionics, etc are classified secret. The average joe isn't going to know if the RCS changes on the aircraft or the stealth isn't what the manufacturer claims it would be.
3. No choice....currently in the white world there is no other alternative to the capabilities of the F-35 besides the raptor (which LM said would take 200 million to reopen the line and even still the new raptors it would build would have a flyaway cost of over 200 mil). And of course we cant forget the JSF competition. I mean come on, who wanted that ugly ass boeing plane to beat the sleek looking 35? I sure as hell didn't.

Reasons its a better aircraft than the government is letting on:
Okay this is all speculation on my part because the actual data is classified.
1. Stealth. The F-22 is said to have a frontal RCS of a marble. The F-35 frontal RCS is said to be a golf ball. Look the F-22 was specifically designed to be the best fighter aircraft in the world and employ all the latest stealth features into it (hence why we don't export it yet). The F-35 was not designed this way. Particulary when looking at the exhaust of it from the side or rear. That's where the F-35 looks bigger than a marble on radar. However the F-35 has one advantage over the raptor in stealth and that would be the use of applying the RAM on the aircrafts skin when "baking" the plane. Maintenance crews are loving this feature over the F-22 because of the ease of maintenece. Also, while the F-22 carefully "stealthed" every single nut and bolt, every access panel, etc., the F-35 did not. And its still got an RCS the size of a golf ball.
2. "The Code". I think by the last time I looked into it, the F-35 needed over 25 million lines of code for the aircraft and ground systems, significantly more than the F-22. I believe this is the major reason for all the delays on the aircraft. The code is just not being written fast enough to keep pace with the flight testing. However that may be its greatest ally. See the F-35 is limited in almost everything it does until it is block updated to a higher level. Every block slowly increases the aircrafts capabilities. By the time the aircraft is IOC, it will already be better than any other aircraft in the world except its older brother.
3. Avionics/Sensor Fusion/EW/ETC. By the time this aircraft is fully operational, no other aircraft in the world will even come close to its capabilities in this department, including the raptor. When I was refueling the JSF over Edwards years back we were able to chat with the test pilots who were telling us all kinds of information about the future capabilities of these sensor suites and I gotta say, wow. I believe this area is the one area that is briefed to the foes in congress who are trying to shut down the project and its changing their minds. For starters, imagine being the lead aircraft in a four ship of F-35's and your in a dogfight with four other aircraft. Say you screwed up and allowed an enemy to get on your six and its about to fire a missile at you. Imagine being able to command an AIM-9 sidewinder from your number 3 or number 4 in your flight to launch at the target on your six. boom...

look I know this is long and off topic, but people out there need to give this fighter a chance to succeed. Because once all the testing is over and once we have over 2,000 aircraft in our inventory, they will be a formidable opponent for the next forty years. I know its costing an arm and a leg for these things, but the price per aircraft is going down with every buy. In 2012 I believe it was, the A model cost dropped below a 100 mil for the first time and by 2020 the aircraft is predicted to cost 75 million a pop with the engine in todays dollars.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

US can build more F-22s for air superiority, and can buy the more advanced versions of the F-18 proposed by Boeing for the Navy, until new fighters can be designed and produced. Some of the capabilities of JSF are nice to have, but not required (the helmet), although they can all be retrofitted to new build F-22.
edit on 6-7-2014 by Matt1951 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Zaphod, you seem to know a lot about this plane, may I ask you a question?

I have been skeptical of the program to use this plane off of our new Carriers, do you think it would have been a better solution to go with the FA/18 or a design using that platform?



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Bill Sweetman loves to speculate. It's what he does. There is no actual evidence how the international versions will differ. His argument is about as complex as export controls are required as the F-35, therefore they will be less stealthy. Talk about jumping to conclusions.

Also much of the push behind this comes from Boeing.

edit on 6/7/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Matt1951


The F-22 is an extremely expensive aircraft and the production line closed. Speaking of software difficulties, the F-22 is notorious for this, it is also notorious for being extremely expensive to operate. It is also a single-role aircraft, rather than multi-role like the F-35. The USAF is very clearly prioritizing multi-role aircraft.

Some features could be implemented on the F-22. That would require the entire avionics to be replaced. Also the features of the F-35 are also the features that have caused it to have so many developmental problems. Putting the features of the F-35 into other aircraft also brings the problems of the F-35 into other aircraft.

USMC will have no aircraft.

Allies will be stuck with Hornets forever.

Seems you want to sacrifice everything for a small number of super expensive F-22s.
edit on 6/7/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/7/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Matt1951

No you can't just retrofit the technology onto the F-22. It would require a complete redesign of the aircraft, and years of testing.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: dmfsb

The F-18 has its own issues. Even with conformal fuel tanks it has range issues depending on payload.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: dmfsb

The F-18 has its own issues. Even with conformal fuel tanks it has range issues depending on payload.


A good explanation, I have starred you



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz
The last F-22s to be produced cost no more than a JSF. And the F-22 works.




top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join