F-35 Has Thirteen Expensive New Flaws

More money wasted there... (should have stayed with the F-22)...

Trillion-Dollar Jet Has Thirteen Expensive New Flaws

The most expensive weapons program in U.S. history is about to get a lot pricier.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, meant to replace nearly every tactical warplane in the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, was already expected to cost $1 trillion dollars for development, production and maintenance over the next 50 years. Now that cost is expected to grow, owing to 13 different design flaws uncovered in the last two months by a hush-hush panel of five Pentagon experts. It could cost up to a billion dollars to fix the flaws on copies of the jet already in production, to say nothing of those yet to come.

In addition to costing more, the stealthy F-35 could take longer to complete testing. That could delay the stealthy jet's combat debut to sometime after 2018 - seven years later than originally planned.

And an obvious flaw revealed...

In other words, the F-35 might not be as invisible to radar as prime contractor Lockheed Martin said it would be.

Duh. Many analysts pointed that out early on, but eh, you don't doubt the gods at Lockheed Martin.

But that optimism proved unfounded. "This assessment shows that the F-35 program has discovered and is continuing to discover issues at a rate more typical of early design experience on previous aircraft development programs," the panelists explained. Testing uncovered problems the computers did not predict, resulting in 725 design changes while new jets were rolling off the factory floor in Ft. Worth, Texas.

Brilliant. So basically the F-35 is NOWHERE near ready.

Cut the F-35 already. Put the F-22 back into production. Problem solved.

Re-tooling a production line is going to be a massive cost , ouch . Who's pocket books are going to be hit for that task . Safe to say the public will eat that one also . Merry Xmas .

Originally posted by Vitchilo

And an obvious flaw revealed...

In other words, the F-35 might not be as invisible to radar as prime contractor Lockheed Martin said it would be.

Duh. Many analysts pointed that out early on, but eh, you don't doubt the gods at Lockheed Martin.

Actually that one is not "revealed" - it is supposed -

Most ominously, the report mentions - but does not describe - a "classified" deficiency. "Dollars to doughnuts it has something to do with stealth," aviation guru Bill Sweetman wrote. In other words, the F-35 might not be as invisible to radar as prime contractor Lockheed Martin said it would be.

Isn't the F-22 the fighter that was grounded for oxygen system probelms earlier this year??

welcome to a world where anything new is so insanely complicated that yuo cn't afford it, it has multiple ways of breaking down, and they take forever to get "right"!

So finally my job has some relevance to 'real life':


The shop I work for makes the radar assembly for both F22 and JSF.

I personally make parts for both these radar. A little secret thats not confidential:
Both radar systems are extremely similar. The JSF just costs more cause its the lastest greatest, has alot of flash and bang and promises better stealth(apparently not)..

The F22 radar assembly is a little bit bigger but functionally similar.
We just got a contract cut for the F22. I personally like the F22 better. It weighs a little more because it is more stable. Has more 'bolt holes' and seems stronger built.


Just my 2c, but hey, its not like I make it 9hrs a day....(I do)


(Oh and BTW, just recently there has been a spike in F18 demand... CAUSE ITS A RELIABLE FIGHTER JET THAT WORKS! DUUUUH :duh


That's as far as I can go. Stu on that...

reply to post by Vitchilo


From the late Thirties to the early Fifties we went from Bi-Planes to Swept wing Fighters.

Maybe we should relook at how we contract how fighters, warships, weapons are built? Let the Armed Forces tell the aircraft companies what they require, hold a competition and let the companies absorb the cost of development. It's called incentive.

The winner of the contract reaps profits and the losers can make parts for the winner.

I know it's a simplistic solution...but sometimes that is what is needed.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

From the late Thirties to the early Fifties we went from Bi-Planes to Swept wing Fighters.

Maybe we should relook at how we contract how fighters, warships, weapons are built? Let the Armed Forces tell the aircraft companies what they require, hold a competition and let the companies absorb the cost of development. It's called incentive.

The winner of the contract reaps profits and the losers can make parts for the winner.

I know it's a simplistic solution...but sometimes that is what is needed.

Interesting idea, but unfortunately it won't happen. The last privately funded prototype plane was the f-20(upgraded f-5) which was never picked up by anyone due to the US Government either not allowing it to be exported or offering f-16's in its place to interested countries. Sad story really, I wish I could afford one!

ok, update to my previous post.

First thing this morning when I arrived at work, I sought out the senior programmer for the F22 and JSF radar assembly's (he has more clearance then me and is much higher up on the pay grid) So I ask him; what is the main difference between the two jets?
His reply:

"The Joint Strike Fighter is a multinational fighter jet that 6 or 7 different countries are in on. The F22 is by far the most advanced fighter Jet we have. Pilots of the F22 have been interviewed and stated that unless 4 or more enemy fighters at a time were involved, there was no competition. The F22 can detect and neutralize those enemy fighters before they can come into range for themselves."

So as I stated earlier - The F22 seems to me like the way to go.

reply to post by ThatGuy45


The trouble with pilots is they are unrelaible 'cos they only love their mount more than they love themselves

I was talking to an RAF Typhoon jockey and I asked him how he felt it stacked up. He said 'I fear nothing in the sky', well, I retorted, maybe except an F-22? The reply came back "they'd like us to be afraid of it" accompanied by a big grin of smug satisfaction.

pilots can be nobheads

Any Fighter these days should be built for dogfighting.

Radar guided missiles are unable to distinguish friend from foe.

By the time your close enough to use heat seekers or opticals your in the dogfight zone, you'd better have some cannons.

To use cannons you need to be able to turn, ideally out-turn your opponent.

This is where the F-35 falls flat on its butt, to turn fast you need low wing loading, the F-35 has high wing loading, so high it turns like a brick.

Tested against SU-27's and SU-35 terminators, both the F-35 and the F-22 got pasted,wasted,butt-kicked.

The US needs to start again from scratch and build a plane according to the demands of the pilots who will fly them, like the F-15, brilliant aircraft.

Both the F-22 and the F-35 are corporate screw-ups made by a company that just wanted to sell planes to dumb-ass politicians and un-experienced USAF Generals.

Actually the YF-23 was a much better Aircraft for multi-role purposes than either of the two Lockheed offerings.

If it were my choice, i would remodel the F-15 with stealthier bodywork and an upgraded electronic package, the airframe itself is sound and doesn't need any mods.

The F-15 was built by pilots for pilots which is probably why it is such an awesome aircraft in a dogfight.

Back to the drawing board imho.

Cosmic..

To make matters worse, none of the branches really want this aircraft... or the military forces of other nations....

The only ones who want it are politicians and misguided bean-counters (who don't understand the value of things that don't suck).

Honestly, they need a larger airframe to fill the roles they are wanting it to fill. It would need to be something more along the lines of... say... an F-18E/F...

The irony being that the F-18E/F are almost identical in terms of avionics. There are a few differences, but we really don't need to be doing colonoscopies during CAS (which you can practically do with the F-35's systems).

Really, I wouldn't take the F-35 on any mission I cared to come back alive from. I believe its nickname will be the "penguin" among the many armed services. Not only does it look like one, it is also a flightless bird.

Perhaps we could adapt the frame to be an agile mini-sub, in true Penguin spirit?

I read this last night and actually laughed out loud because this post from Cosmic4life was so ridiculous.

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
Any Fighter these days should be built for dogfighting.

Radar guided missiles are unable to distinguish friend from foe.

No they don't, but they also don't have to - its up to the pilot to determine if the target is hostile or not, and they do that through situational awareness.

It is extremely rare for a combat pilot to find themself in a situation where it has no idea if the radar contacts are hostile and has to make their own decision - 99% of the time they are under the control of an AWACs or other control structure, so they do not have the ability to just chase after and engage a dot on their radar screen.

The command structure will make the determination of whether or not the unidentified contact is hostile, unknown or friendly, and they have several means to do so.

In a combat theatre, every aircraft will have a designated patrol area and route which the command structure can use to determine if there is a friendly in the area - and then you have IFF transponders which are even kept active during missions (IFF can be encrypted and directional, so its not a straight shout out into the air - responding to an IFF ping is not considered dangerous for a combat aircraft).

If the contact is deemed unknown, then the fighter is vectored to intercept - again, not considered highly dangerous because of the way its done (the fighter never gets to within usable range for an infrared missile, and it will pick up an actively guided missiles radar well before its launched).

So, missiles aren't required to make the distinction - theres an entire operational structure there behind the pilot in the cockpit which has the job, and they do the job well.

By the time your close enough to use heat seekers or opticals your in the dogfight zone, you'd better have some cannons.

Why? The whole goal of current air to air engagements is to not have to be that close to your opponent. Hit them from afar, before they even see you.

Tested against SU-27's and SU-35 terminators, both the F-35 and the F-22 got pasted,wasted,butt-kicked.

I'd love to know where you came up with that little gem.

The US needs to start again from scratch and build a plane according to the demands of the pilots who will fly them, like the F-15, brilliant aircraft.

Right. And thats despite the fact that many pilots are on record as stating the F-22 is a beauty to fly and fight in...?

Both the F-22 and the F-35 are corporate screw-ups made by a company that just wanted to sell planes to dumb-ass politicians and un-experienced USAF Generals.

Oh, and yet somehow the F-15, which you seem to love, was a corporate success made by a company which wanted to sell the best aircraft ever to highly intelligent politicians and very experienced USAF generals?

Sorry, no. The F-22 was made to the USAFs designated requirements by Lockheed. The USAF bought what they wanted - and by all accounts, its a nice aircraft.

Actually the YF-23 was a much better Aircraft for multi-role purposes than either of the two Lockheed offerings.

Again, another gem - why is it that there seems to be so much known about a developmental airframe that made a couple of hundred flights two decades ago. The YF-23 was never evaluated for its capabilities in the role that the F-35 is fulfilling, so where does the information come from that supports your assertion? The YF-23 was extensively evaluated for the role the F-22 was purchased for, and despite all the claims to the contrary, the YF-22 was deemed to be the better of the two aircraft.

I love the YF-23 concept, its a fine looking aircraft. But it didn't win the contest. And for some unknown god awful reason it seems to have become an urban legend of an aircraft - something that even the USAF didnt want because it was too good!

One of the reasons Lockheed was chosen as the winner was Northrops huge budget overruns on the B-2 program. However, this was not the main reason, it was one of the competitions factors - if the YF-23 had really outperformed the YF-22 to the extent that legend seems to have it, then the USAF would have purchased the YF-23 anyway and placed strict contractual limits on Northrop (including having Lockheed step in as a major partner - yes, the DoD can do that).

But they didn't. They bought the YF-22 instead. Now why would they do that instead of buying the wonder-bird?

If it were my choice, i would remodel the F-15 with stealthier bodywork and an upgraded electronic package, the airframe itself is sound and doesn't need any mods.

Even Boeing isn't interested in selling the F-15 as a dogfighter any more - you can't buy a single seater version of it these days, they only sell the ground attack optimised version.

reply to post by RichardPrice

No they don't, but they also don't have to - its up to the pilot to determine if the target is hostile or not, and they do that through situational awareness.

BVR engagements are quite rare, these days.

The F-14 was highly valued for its optical search function slaved to both the IR seeker and radar. ROE almost always mandates visual identification of the target before it can be engaged.

True - more modern radars have the capacity to analyze the telemetry of the radar return and provide a fairly accurate identification - but the ROE are often more politically motivated than operationally.

Further, missiles like the Aim-7M and Aim-120 do not have all that impressive marks in terms of accuracy. In a number of cases, the engagement has closed to a merger due to failure of the missiles to score a kill - for various reasons.

In a combat theatre, every aircraft will have a designated patrol area and route which the command structure can use to determine if there is a friendly in the area - and then you have IFF transponders which are even kept active during missions (IFF can be encrypted and directional, so its not a straight shout out into the air - responding to an IFF ping is not considered dangerous for a combat aircraft).

Yeah.... that's what we call the "O-Plan" - which never survives first contact with the enemy.

Aircraft stray outside their bounds. IFF transponders get set to the "officer" position (it is an officer flying the aircraft.... it only makes sense....), datalinks go down... the list goes on.

You're speaking like Air Force generals did about the F-105. Perhaps you should go brush up on that little gem of aviation history.

So, missiles aren't required to make the distinction - theres an entire operational structure there behind the pilot in the cockpit which has the job, and they do the job well.

You're viewing this through a fairly narrow scope. True - the missile doesn't need to identify the foe. The problem, however, is that most kills, even today, are made within visual range of the target. The Navy learned a lesson with the F-4, and even developed the ACM courses following the abysmal K/D ratio of Vietnam.

A fighter is still a fighter.

Why? The whole goal of current air to air engagements is to not have to be that close to your opponent. Hit them from afar, before they even see you.

Then you land and find out you just took out a CH-47D en-route to deploy a team of special warfare operatives whose training and experience are more valuable than ten of your aircraft, not to mention your ass.

Ideally, yes - BVR works wonderfully. Realistically, however, you have to give pilots enough autonomy to make judgment calls in the heat of combat. You cannot rely on JTIDS and your chain of command to babysit you and be aware of everything that is happening at every moment.

Which is why we rely on visual ID so heavily in the ROE.

Right. And thats despite the fact that many pilots are on record as stating the F-22 is a beauty to fly and fight in...?

The F-22 has many of its own costly teething problems. However, it was designed as an air superiority fighter.

I love the YF-23 concept, its a fine looking aircraft. But it didn't win the contest. And for some unknown god awful reason it seems to have become an urban legend of an aircraft - something that even the USAF didnt want because it was too good!

Pork&Barrel politics. The YF-23 was a superior airframe in all but low velocity maneuvering. It was a lower drag design with better LO characteristics and would have sported a substantially larger and more versatile munitions bay.

if the YF-23 had really outperformed the YF-22 to the extent that legend seems to have it, then the USAF would have purchased the YF-23 anyway and placed strict contractual limits on Northrop (including having Lockheed step in as a major partner - yes, the DoD can do that).

No, that's not really how it works.

There are many factors to consider in the choice to purchase the airframe. Had the Navy not dropped interest in the ATF program, they likely would have considered a carrier version of the F-23, as they tend to side with Grumman and have radically different preferences compared to the Air Force (YF-16 vs YF-17).

reply to post by RichardPrice


Cool cos when i read your post i nearly died laughing.

Your F-22 might be great against small countries with small Air forces and limited technology, but when your in a real war against a bigger foe you will realize the ignorance of your statement.

1. Your AWACS won't be there, it will have been toasted by surface to air missiles.

2.When the sky is full of aircraft...20..30..40..planes, how are you going to know which is which.

3.The Combat tests of the F-22 were in a fixed environment where the pilots knew who would be coming from where, they only proved that the F-22 has greater radar range and so in that fixed environment were able to fire their missiles before opponent detection.

In a real world situation against lots of opponents radar guided missiles are next to useless, you use the term situational awareness, what ? you mean the Mk 1 eyeball ?? optical range is cannon range my friend and if your in optical range, wing loading and power to weight ratios are the things that will decide your fate.

Your F-22 is a fancy police car, when it comes to war and i mean war it will show its weakness and you will be shown your ignorance in disregarding the fluid nature of fighting in the fog of chaos with-out your super-duper systems.

Cosmic..

reply to post by Aim64C


I like your response Aim64C, much more detailed and Technically correct than my emotive rant.

It really annoys me when a poster decides to take the absolute p### out of a reply in such an insulting way.

Again thank you for your timely and informed reply to his inaccurate wishful thinking.

I'm off to cool down with a nice drink or two.

Cosmic..

why don't we sink some doh! into peace
Now there is a novel Idea, very few design flaws in that.
I'd personally be willing to put one of the design engineers up at my place till he finds a new job.
maybe even beat him in to a ploughshare for his own good

reply to post by Danbones


Amen to that.



Cosmic..