UK ordering first 14 F-35's

reply to post by crazyewok


It's almost like the wing test when they snap them. The FAA calls for the wing to stand up to a 150% load before breaking. But Boeing and Airbus both will redesign the wing if it fails near 150%. They expect closer to 200%.

These parts are failing after the "150%" but before they expected. It's not a deal breaker at all. If the fix isn't applied, the parts will still last as expected.

But Boeing and Airbus both will redesign the wing if it fails near 150%. They expect closer to 200%.

They will redesign the wing if it fails at less than 150%. It will typically break at 150% or slightly above. They don't aim for 200% because the wing would be heavier than it needs to be.

Interesting read and I will add that I am posting from Canada which unfortunately has also signed on to buy these "Cadillac's of the sky"

Here is a link for reference.......
www.cbsnews.com...

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by C0bzz


I've seen wings redesigned that failed at 150 because they weren't happy that it was right at the failure point. They won't go for 200 but they generally want over 150.

Why? thats an awful lot of money to buy a big piece of junk that serves no purpose. Why not just buy drones? they can do the same thing, are cheap, and you don't have to recruit, train, and pay human pilots. It's not like htere are any real threats out there anymore. russia? china? they're pre-occupied now making money. Drones are better. Drones are the way to go. The F-35 is just a giant money toilet. and always will be. Hopefully, a person will come along soon in the DoD and just cancel the entire program. It's just embarrasing.

tencap77
Why? thats an awful lot of money to buy a big piece of junk that serves no purpose. Why not just buy drones? they can do the same thing, are cheap, and you don't have to recruit, train, and pay human pilots. It's not like htere are any real threats out there anymore. russia? china? they're pre-occupied now making money. Drones are better. Drones are the way to go. The F-35 is just a giant money toilet. and always will be. Hopefully, a person will come along soon in the DoD and just cancel the entire program. It's just embarrasing.

the f-35 is a political tool to safeguard jobs for crooked congressman wanting re-election at any cost.

it's too big to fail.

the f-35 turkey could not take off and they had to SHAVE WEIGHT of everything.took 3 years of redesign.

3000 pounds of worth of weight shaved off....that is why the cracks appearing everywhere.ALREADY.

The frame is just too thin.


i dare say a rifle could bring it down as it is so fragile with it's very thin skin airframe...

reply to post by beckybecky


I dare say that a B-52 was put out of commission because of a farmer with a shotgun.

I also dare say that A-6 and other attack aircraft have been shot down by rifle fire.

But because you don't like the F-35 it's suddenly some massively huge issue.

reply to post by beckybecky


LOL.

What an amazing, in-depth analysis.

Don't get me wrong I do not like the F35, but as a realistic person I'll have to live with it as it's going nowhere.

The harrier line closed long ago, the typhoon will never be a carrier bird and ucav another ten years before IOC on carriers.

I find the rifle fire comments interesting you can make a hole in anything if the bullet, dart or brick is moving fast enough. And in today's world a hole in the radar or fuel control system you best go home that is true of modern aircarft .

Anything that fly's that is heavier than air can and will drop from the sky for alsorts or reasons so I will not pick on the f35 for this but will await the final UK order.

After the first 14 stand up, if 48 is the final order its OK if the order is 160 its very cool.

Rich

reply to post by beckybecky


Your talents and knowlage astound me.......

Zaphod58
reply to post by beckybecky

 

I dare say that a B-52 was put out of commission because of a farmer with a shotgun.

I also dare say that A-6 and other attack aircraft have been shot down by rifle fire.

But because you don't like the F-35 it's suddenly some massively huge issue.

Which one of my facts was wrong above?

My uncle ted reads avaition weekly in the town library and he told me it one of the worst planes ever due to FACTS.

The fact is the f-35 is crippled by that giant fan behind the pilot.its dead weight basically they have to lug about.

FACT:to accommodate it they had to make the plane wider.

FACT:the wings are sghort.its poor range.poor weight lifting.

FACT :poor turning.

its a DONKEY crossed with a elephant.

All safety margins SHAVED to lose weight because its too heavy and too small.
a congressional committee found that it so thin it actually flexes during flight.to cause CRACKS.

proved right again as shown by the wing cracks.


The F-35 is just rubbish only people ordering have been bribed by offers of "consultancy" jobs AND SPIN after they leave their present posts.

Remember I was in the Army for a short time and they showed us some planes so i know what i am talking about.

its a dumpling.

its just a committee made plane.

trillion $ wasted on a turkey.a 1001 more problems have been uncovered.

in 10 years time it will cost 500 million each.

its a dumpling.

beckybecky
FACT:the wings are sghort.its poor range.poor weight lifting.

The combat radius of the F-35B on internal fuel is 450 nm. An F-16, with 6 1,000 lb bombs, on a HI-LO-HI profile is 340 nm. An F-18 is 330 nm. The maximum payload of an F-35B is 15,000 lbs. An F-16 can carry 17,000 lbs, and an F-18 can carry 17,750 lbs. So the range is better depending on the mission, and the payload is only slightly less than the current aircraft.

All safety margins SHAVED to lose weight because its too heavy and too small.
a congressional committee found that it so thin it actually flexes during flight.to cause CRACKS.

proved right again as shown by the wing cracks.

I guess that means the F-15E, and F-16 both have zero safety margins too, because both of them have suffered cracking, including very early in their life cycle. There was actually a class of Top Gun cancelled because they couldn't fly the F-16s due to cracking in bulkheads. The F-15E, which is the primary, and at the time only tactical bomber in the entire Air Force inventory was grounded due to cracking found along the engine bays and fuselage. I guess that means they're too thin and have zero safety margin too.

That's why this is called flight testing. So they can get these problems out of the way now, instead of finding out about them ten years down the road, or when they're needed the most.

Remember I was in the Army for a short time and they showed us some planes so i know what i am talking about.

Just because you were in the Army and they "showed you some planes" does not an expert make.

in 10 years time it will cost 500 million each.

Another fact wrong. The costs of the aircraft have dropped significantly each LRIP, and will continue to drop as each build rolls off.

beckybecky

Remember I was in the Army for a short time and they showed us some planes so i know what i am talking about.

And you (If your to be beleived) were kicked out for failing to meet there standards.


hmmmm


Id rather take Zaphods word

reply to post by beckybecky


As Zaph has said, we are building two with the intention of having one at Sea while one is in dock. They did look at putting caps and traps on the carriers for the other F-35 variant but determined the cost to be too high and actually wasted a tonne of money just investigating the idea.

Then there is the cost of navalising the F-16, which is simply inadequate when compared to the F-35.

beckybecky
Remember I was in the Army for a short time and they showed us some planes so i know what i am talking about.

Haha, excellent... I've seen some planes before too - Excuse me while I update my CV and apply for a job at BAe...

stumason

Then there is the cost of navalising the F-16, which is simply inadequate when compared to the F-35.

Plus can it even be converted to such use?

Would be easier to buy F-18 surely?


Maybe Il go down to the local RAF and look at some planes, I could become a expert

O wait I went to airshow once I already am hehe

reply to post by crazyewok


Quite - the F-18 would be the natural choice between the two. But even that is inferior to the F-35.

As I said earlier, plenty were saying the Typhoon was a paperweight before it came into service - but now, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the know who would criticise it.

reply to post by stumason


Several aircraft that are currently on the "greatest" list had troubled development histories. But by the end of their life, or within a few years of being in service they were amazing aircraft. Just like some of them that had almost zero trouble during development went on to have horrid careers. You just can't tell.

The cracks are appearing in fatigue testing, after the design life expectancy of parts. They are talking redesign because they are cracking sooner than expected.

reply to post by Zaphod58

T he new F-35 Lightning II was designed to be the military’s do-everything stealth fighter, a mainstay of U.S. defense strategy for the next 40 to 50 years. Variants of the supersonic killer are being produced for the Air Force, Marines and Navy, and 10 allied countries stretching from Canada to Turkey. It’s the U.S. Department of Defense’s most costly and ambitious aircraft acquisition program and it’s been under way since 2001, yet the F-35 isn’t ready for prime time. The $392 billion program is seven years behind schedule. The military has not allowed the fleet to fly at full throttle. Or within 25 miles of lightning. Or with weapons. Simply put, the plane that the military calls its Joint Strike Fighter isn’t cleared to fight — and it’s hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. Arizona will be home to two F-35 installations — Luke Air Force Base in Glendale and Marine Corps Air Station Yuma in the southwest corner of the state. The first of 144 F-35s is expected to touch down this month or early next month at Luke.

That could be because of this maybe?
www.azcentral.com...

Taking off some kilos so it can actually fly?

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Iwinder


The weight reduction wasn't so much so it could fly, but to meet range/speed parameters closer than it was.