JSF Hit By Serious Design Problems
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
JSF Hit By Serious Design Problems
The AD software module issue seems a mirror image of the Typhoon A-G issues that so many have been slagging off for so long. So maybe it won't be that much better than the GR9 in the AD role for a while. Standby for further slippages and price escalations....
DID: F-35 JSF Hit by Serious Design Problems
On May 3, 2007, during the 19th test flight of the prototype of the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a serious electrical malfunction occurred in the control of the plane. After an emergency landing the malfunction could be identified as a crucial problem, and it became clear that redesign of critical electronic components was necessary. Producer Lockheed Martin and program officials first announced there was a minor problem, and later on they avoided any further publicity about the problems.
The delay has become serious, however, and rising costs for the JSF program seem to be certain......
On May 3, 2007 with the second test pilot Jeff Knowles at the stick, a serious malfunction hits the JSF. At 38,000 feet (12 km) level flight and at a speed of some 800 km/hour, the plane executed a planned, 360-degree roll but experienced power loss in the electrical system about halfway through the manoeuvre.
In an emergency procedure, power is restored and Jeff Knowles regains control of the plane. The pilot cuts short this 19th test flight and makes an emergency landing in Fort Worth, TX. Due to control problems with right wing flaperons, the JSF has to make that landing at an exceptional high speed of 220 knots (350 km/hr). The plane's undercarriage, brakes and tires are damaged. The plane is stopped, surrounded by emergency vehicles, and towed away, but several eyewitnesses take pictures of the emergency landing.
Lockheed Martin technicians identify a component in the 270-power supply as the culprit in the near-accident. The JSF's new technology includes new electro-hydrostatic actuators (EHAs) for the flight control system, replacing more conventional hydraulic systems......After several weeks of evaluations, the engineers learn that there are serious design problems in this new electrical system. Expensive redesign will be necessary.....
Another fact was discovered via a military employee of one of the European air forces, who works within the JSF project team, and is a liaison person for several air forces. He says that flying in 2012 with the JSF may be safe and the JSF can be used as a plane to fly around. But, the several software modules for weapons system integration will not be ready. Ground attack capability is the priority, so early-build F-35s will primarily be "bomb trucks" until the additional software modules can be tested and loaded. Air superiority capabilities will be restricted, and completed only after 2015. This means that full multi-role capability is possible by 2016 at the earliest, if and only if no major problems occur in development and testing of the weapon systems software.......
Nor are these the only challenging problems facing the F-35 program. The F-35C naval variant's Hamilton Sundstrand power generator was mistakenly designed to only 65% of the required electric output. To accommodate the required increase, it will also be necessary to redesign the gearbox for the standard Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, which will be fitted into the conventional F-35A version as well as the naval F-35C. The contract announced by the US Department of Defense in August 2007 says that this engine update won't be ready for use until the end of 2009, which is almost the beginning of low-rate initial production.
Lockheed Martin can issue a subcontract to Hamilton Sundstrand to fix the F135's power generator without any publicity, and they have done so. As of December 1, 2007, neither Lockheed Martin's nor Hamilton Sundstrand's 2007 news archives show any trace of this award. Pratt & Whitney has a separate government contract for the F135 engine, however, and the award's size forces the Pentagon to announce the award under its rules for publicizing contracts.
Although it seemed probable that last October the JSF would fly again, a new problem arose. During a test run of the F135 engine, part of the engine was blown up by overheating. On November 14, 2007, an eyewitness took pictures of the transportation of a new F135 engine. The date for test flight number 20 (of the scheduled 5,000 test flights) is still unknown.........
DID: F-35 JSF Hit by Serious Design Problems
On May 3, 2007, during the 19th test flight of the prototype of the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a serious electrical malfunction occurred in the control of the plane. After an emergency landing the malfunction could be identified as a crucial problem, and it became clear that redesign of critical electronic components was necessary. Producer Lockheed Martin and program officials first announced there was a minor problem, and later on they avoided any further publicity about the problems.
The delay has become serious, however, and rising costs for the JSF program seem to be certain......
On May 3, 2007 with the second test pilot Jeff Knowles at the stick, a serious malfunction hits the JSF. At 38,000 feet (12 km) level flight and at a speed of some 800 km/hour, the plane executed a planned, 360-degree roll but experienced power loss in the electrical system about halfway through the manoeuvre.
In an emergency procedure, power is restored and Jeff Knowles regains control of the plane. The pilot cuts short this 19th test flight and makes an emergency landing in Fort Worth, TX. Due to control problems with right wing flaperons, the JSF has to make that landing at an exceptional high speed of 220 knots (350 km/hr). The plane's undercarriage, brakes and tires are damaged. The plane is stopped, surrounded by emergency vehicles, and towed away, but several eyewitnesses take pictures of the emergency landing.
Lockheed Martin technicians identify a component in the 270-power supply as the culprit in the near-accident. The JSF's new technology includes new electro-hydrostatic actuators (EHAs) for the flight control system, replacing more conventional hydraulic systems......After several weeks of evaluations, the engineers learn that there are serious design problems in this new electrical system. Expensive redesign will be necessary.....
Another fact was discovered via a military employee of one of the European air forces, who works within the JSF project team, and is a liaison person for several air forces. He says that flying in 2012 with the JSF may be safe and the JSF can be used as a plane to fly around. But, the several software modules for weapons system integration will not be ready. Ground attack capability is the priority, so early-build F-35s will primarily be "bomb trucks" until the additional software modules can be tested and loaded. Air superiority capabilities will be restricted, and completed only after 2015. This means that full multi-role capability is possible by 2016 at the earliest, if and only if no major problems occur in development and testing of the weapon systems software.......
Nor are these the only challenging problems facing the F-35 program. The F-35C naval variant's Hamilton Sundstrand power generator was mistakenly designed to only 65% of the required electric output. To accommodate the required increase, it will also be necessary to redesign the gearbox for the standard Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, which will be fitted into the conventional F-35A version as well as the naval F-35C. The contract announced by the US Department of Defense in August 2007 says that this engine update won't be ready for use until the end of 2009, which is almost the beginning of low-rate initial production.
Lockheed Martin can issue a subcontract to Hamilton Sundstrand to fix the F135's power generator without any publicity, and they have done so. As of December 1, 2007, neither Lockheed Martin's nor Hamilton Sundstrand's 2007 news archives show any trace of this award. Pratt & Whitney has a separate government contract for the F135 engine, however, and the award's size forces the Pentagon to announce the award under its rules for publicizing contracts.
Although it seemed probable that last October the JSF would fly again, a new problem arose. During a test run of the F135 engine, part of the engine was blown up by overheating. On November 14, 2007, an eyewitness took pictures of the transportation of a new F135 engine. The date for test flight number 20 (of the scheduled 5,000 test flights) is still unknown.........
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That has to be worth reconsidering, esp in light of current budget problems. IIRC the F35 part of the carrier spend is around £8bn? Using Tranche 3 Typhoons instead would seem a good idea even without F35 probs and a budget squeeze....
So maybe it won't be that much better than the GR9 in the AD role for a while.
But the F35 will have a radar, and hopefully link 16/22, so perhaps a better comparison would be with the AV8B+, or the dear old Sea Harrier?
Since the new carriers are likely to be delayed from the intended dates of 2012 and 2015 for entering service, this may not be as big an issue as it might appear.
But the F35 will have a radar, and hopefully link 16/22, so perhaps a better comparison would be with the AV8B+, or the dear old Sea Harrier?
Since the new carriers are likely to be delayed from the intended dates of 2012 and 2015 for entering service, this may not be as big an issue as it might appear.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Overlooking the beach, NZ
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing which caught my attention was the estimated costings (from a computer geek website DailyTech, so I dunno if they are good!):
"Costs for the program have ballooned from $30 billion USD in 2002 to $40 billion USD today. And according to the Air Force, a single F-35 will cost $100 million USD when production is comfortably underway in 2013 -- this compares to $50 million USD for a single F-16 or $132 million USD for a single F-22 Raptor."
Man who would want 4 JSFs when you could have three Raptors! An it saves on pilot costs
"Costs for the program have ballooned from $30 billion USD in 2002 to $40 billion USD today. And according to the Air Force, a single F-35 will cost $100 million USD when production is comfortably underway in 2013 -- this compares to $50 million USD for a single F-16 or $132 million USD for a single F-22 Raptor."
Man who would want 4 JSFs when you could have three Raptors! An it saves on pilot costs
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confused.....
Ummmm, 1x JSF $100 million so 4 x JSF $400 million.
and then 1x F22 $132 million so 3 x F22 $396 million......
can't see the problem with the maths myself or am I thick?
and then 1x F22 $132 million so 3 x F22 $396 million......
can't see the problem with the maths myself or am I thick?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Scuse my ignorance (civ but not mil flyer; mil but not civ shooter) and also 'scuse the shiraz I've been knocking back tonight.....
Is the 'J' in this whole thing worth it? Is this 'J' as idiotic as McNamara's grand plans 45+ years ago?
Why faff around creating a 80% solution for every situation in (basically) one airframe, engine & avionics system, when more specific 95% solutions in (basically) three different systems for three (or more) situations might each have had a chance of coming in (roughly) on time and (roughly within 50%) of budget?
Has it been worth all this $$$$$ to create one system to try and do almost everything?
Back to the vino .....
Is the 'J' in this whole thing worth it? Is this 'J' as idiotic as McNamara's grand plans 45+ years ago?
Why faff around creating a 80% solution for every situation in (basically) one airframe, engine & avionics system, when more specific 95% solutions in (basically) three different systems for three (or more) situations might each have had a chance of coming in (roughly) on time and (roughly within 50%) of budget?
Has it been worth all this $$$$$ to create one system to try and do almost everything?
Back to the vino .....
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK, for now.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exchange rates
"Costs for the program have ballooned from $30 billion USD in 2002 to $40 billion USD today."
$40billion in 2007 - about £20billion
Gotta love that weak dollar!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Overlooking the beach, NZ
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope maths is not my strong point- my strong point is my charm and good looks-, but as pointed out by good old artyhug (how are ya mate?), it is better than yours, Boldface
Last edited by bakseetblatherer; 7th Dec 2007 at 19:08.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blown it.....
See now I, for a moment, put aside my envy of life in the sun but you just had to push it too far..... Charming and good looking my a*se. Now get back to your vineyards whilst we harrumph around in the rain......
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: where the streets have no IEDs. Yet.
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bakseet, don't mention the sheep. Things are bad enough up here without them finding out about all that smooth kissing; how many more migrants do you want down there, bro ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Throwing what little ££ is left after bad....
Well all aircraft have initial design problems but getting the flight control actuation wrong from the start is a bit off 
.......going to cost $$$$$'s to sort along with massive program delays.
Hmmm, maybe going French might not be such a ££££££ bad idea, after all Rafale HAS already been on Afgan ops.....
.......going to cost $$$$$'s to sort along with massive program delays. Hmmm, maybe going French might not be such a ££££££ bad idea, after all Rafale HAS already been on Afgan ops.....
But surely one of the problems with the JSF project is the amount of publicity - so much that every mishap is portrayed as a disaster? The first flight was nearly a year ago and presumably test flying has continued.
There is a wealth of infomation at the DOD JSF project website.
There is a wealth of infomation at the DOD JSF project website.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
But surely one of the problems with the JSF project is the amount of publicity - so much that every mishap is portrayed as a disaster? The first flight was nearly a year ago and presumably test flying has continued.
No date, as far as I am aware, has been announced for the resumption of flying and test flight 20.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bin it.
so much that every mishap is portrayed as a disaster
You said it. A financial disaster in the making, a slow, overweight, performance limited aircraft that has had it's avionics and defensive systems slimmed down for budgetary limits all for the holy grail of "stealth" except some will be more stealthy than others!
That should set the cat amongst the pigeons....
You said it. A financial disaster in the making, a slow, overweight, performance limited aircraft that has had it's avionics and defensive systems slimmed down for budgetary limits all for the holy grail of "stealth" except some will be more stealthy than others!
That should set the cat amongst the pigeons....