Originally Posted by
busdriver02
What lack of electrical protection and fire suppression are you talking about?
""The program's most recent vulnerability assessment showed that the removal of fueldraulic fuses,
the PAO shutoff valve and the
dry bay fire suppression, also removed in 2008, results in the F-35
not meeting the Operational Requirements Document (ORD)
requirement to have a vulnerability posture better than analogous legacy aircraft," officials wrote in the report."
The vulnerability of the F-35 to
electrical system ballistic
damage remains an open question. Based on the F-35A
aircraft (AA:0001) in-flight incident in 2007, electrical arcing tests in 2009, and the flight-critical system-level test events
in 2012, DOT&E recommended that the program conduct
additional analyses to address the likelihood and consequence
of arcing from the 270-volt to 28-volt system. The Lockheed
Martin electrical power system team is
currently working on a
response to these concerns.
Interestingly the report throws up this little gem..
The fuel ingestion tests did not simulate engagements
by ground-based or aircraft gun systems that are
possible during
low-altitude close-air support missions
and within‑visual‑range air-to-air combat. A Concept
Demonstrator Aircraft engine test in 2005 showed the engine
could not tolerate fuel ingestion events representative of such
conditions (i.e., low-altitude, high-speed, high-engine thrust,
and higher leak rates). The program made no design changes
in response to those earlier test results and this vulnerability
remains in the final production engine design. A ballistic
liner in the fuel tank could mitigate this vulnerability, but the
program removed this feature during its weight-reduction
efforts, saving 48 pounds
Ref,
http://breakingdefense.com/wp-conten...-35_report.pdf
Report: Lightning a threat to the F-35 | Navy Times | navytimes.com
some "interesting" discussion emerging from this article..
F-35 Stealthier Than F-22? | Ares
"incoming"
