F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Shucks, I was hoping that the Israeli ones had the best chance to have an interesting color scheme applied....
I wonder how much Israeli specific equipment/code they have leaving Fort Worth, or perhaps they will they need a pretty extensive swap out once arriving- likely a bit more involved than installing a new version of Adobe on my home machine....
.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't often comment on pieces from journalists, but I have to make an exception in this case.
Sorry, but this piece from Mr Eric Tegler is, by some distance, one of the worst informed, inaccurate and plain wrong bits of comment on the F-35 programme I've ever seen. Please note, I'm not denying that the program has had problems. Big problems. But this piece of work gets almost every fact wrong, draws the wrong conclusions, and well, just gets it all wrong.
There's a decent bit of work to be done to produce an objective, fact based piece of analysis on the F-35 programme. It could look at how unrealistic schedules got built and accepted (not a problem peculiar to the USA), how important effective requirements development is to any programme (it wasn't done well on F-35), and how LM lost control of the weight of the aircraft. That's not a complete list, but it would be an interesting read, and a useful piece of work for future programmes.
This ain't any of that. But thanks anyway to TDRacer for posting the link.
Best regards as ever to those who want to know the truth,
Engines
Sorry, but this piece from Mr Eric Tegler is, by some distance, one of the worst informed, inaccurate and plain wrong bits of comment on the F-35 programme I've ever seen. Please note, I'm not denying that the program has had problems. Big problems. But this piece of work gets almost every fact wrong, draws the wrong conclusions, and well, just gets it all wrong.
There's a decent bit of work to be done to produce an objective, fact based piece of analysis on the F-35 programme. It could look at how unrealistic schedules got built and accepted (not a problem peculiar to the USA), how important effective requirements development is to any programme (it wasn't done well on F-35), and how LM lost control of the weight of the aircraft. That's not a complete list, but it would be an interesting read, and a useful piece of work for future programmes.
This ain't any of that. But thanks anyway to TDRacer for posting the link.
Best regards as ever to those who want to know the truth,
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 11th Aug 2016 at 21:20.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From KenV,
"It seems to me that the take away for Gen Goldfein's address at Red Flag was that the greatest strength of the F-35 is its connectivity and the onboard fusion/display capabilities of the aircraft which provide its pilots with unprecedented situational awareness and control. Now the million dollar question: how much does stealth add to that equation? If you can get 90% of the F-35's capabilities without stealth, would it make sense to put the F-35's avionics into a non stealth airframe? So probably not a 5th generation fighter but maybe 4.8?"
You could it seems to me kill a number of birds with one stone for the USAF here, put all the sensors into a larger airframe, larger crew, more range, say gulfstream size and you have a Situationally Aware Connected plane with the carrying capacity of the required arsenal planes. Philip
"It seems to me that the take away for Gen Goldfein's address at Red Flag was that the greatest strength of the F-35 is its connectivity and the onboard fusion/display capabilities of the aircraft which provide its pilots with unprecedented situational awareness and control. Now the million dollar question: how much does stealth add to that equation? If you can get 90% of the F-35's capabilities without stealth, would it make sense to put the F-35's avionics into a non stealth airframe? So probably not a 5th generation fighter but maybe 4.8?"
You could it seems to me kill a number of birds with one stone for the USAF here, put all the sensors into a larger airframe, larger crew, more range, say gulfstream size and you have a Situationally Aware Connected plane with the carrying capacity of the required arsenal planes. Philip
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could it seems to me kill a number of birds with one stone for the USAF here, put all the sensors into a larger airframe, larger crew, more range, say gulfstream size and you have a Situationally Aware Connected plane with the carrying capacity of the required arsenal planes.
Engines
No, I didn't do anything to my post, and at least when I look it's still there so I don't believe is was moderated out (post #9560
).
Much (most?) of what I know about the F-35 program is from following this thread so I'm not in a position to judge the accuracy of the linked article - I simply found it interesting.
For me, the most telling part of the F-35 is that I know several co-workers who were involved in the Boeing JSF entry. In 2001, they predicted most of the problems the F-35 program has encountered.
No, I didn't do anything to my post, and at least when I look it's still there so I don't believe is was moderated out (post #9560
).Much (most?) of what I know about the F-35 program is from following this thread so I'm not in a position to judge the accuracy of the linked article - I simply found it interesting.
For me, the most telling part of the F-35 is that I know several co-workers who were involved in the Boeing JSF entry. In 2001, they predicted most of the problems the F-35 program has encountered.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tdracer,
Thanks for coming back - I must be slipping....old age....
The comparison between the Boeing and LM JSF entries was interesting and instructive. Boeing's main problem was that they had selected a STOVL solution (using hot exhausts for hover power) that was always going to give problems. Not only was it less thermodynamically efficient than the LM solution, but it also generated risks of Hot Gas Ingestion, which materialised during flight test. The bottom line was that their STOVL aircraft just didn't work.
The concept also meant that the engine had to nearer the front of the aircraft than the back - never an optimum layout for a supersonic combat jet. Boeing also badly underestimated the problems with getting a pure delta on to the deck and catch a wire - the late addition of the tailplane dealt a huge blow to their proposal's credibility.
However, Boeing had some VERY good aspects to their bid. In particular, their approach to mission systems integration was exceptionally good, and I heard a number of US DoD senior people offer the opinion that what they really wanted was for LM to build the airframe and Boeing to do the mission systems. Boeing's programme management was also miles better than LM's.
In the event, the LM F-35's first really bad problem was excessive weight. This was really unforgivable, as LM had been warned about this, and (in my view) simply failed to put the required importance on keeping weight down. Perhaps the success of their lift system gave them a false sense of security, I really can't say. Putting that right cost the programme at least a year, probably two. The airframe had to be basically redesigned in detail.
The next big problem LM hit was failure to get the mission system software integration to an acceptable level of maturity early enough. Having got behind the drag curve, they have stayed there for some while.
Like so many other military aircraft programmes, the JSF suffered from excessive optimism over schedules - the original IOC dates were really science fiction. A bit like Typhoon's. And F-22's. And so on....it's a common failing across programmes.
Hope this little snapshot helps - but please watch the normal warning - these are really my opinions, and shouldn't be treated as gospel.
Best regards as ever to those who really do know what they are talking about,
Engines
Thanks for coming back - I must be slipping....old age....
The comparison between the Boeing and LM JSF entries was interesting and instructive. Boeing's main problem was that they had selected a STOVL solution (using hot exhausts for hover power) that was always going to give problems. Not only was it less thermodynamically efficient than the LM solution, but it also generated risks of Hot Gas Ingestion, which materialised during flight test. The bottom line was that their STOVL aircraft just didn't work.
The concept also meant that the engine had to nearer the front of the aircraft than the back - never an optimum layout for a supersonic combat jet. Boeing also badly underestimated the problems with getting a pure delta on to the deck and catch a wire - the late addition of the tailplane dealt a huge blow to their proposal's credibility.
However, Boeing had some VERY good aspects to their bid. In particular, their approach to mission systems integration was exceptionally good, and I heard a number of US DoD senior people offer the opinion that what they really wanted was for LM to build the airframe and Boeing to do the mission systems. Boeing's programme management was also miles better than LM's.
In the event, the LM F-35's first really bad problem was excessive weight. This was really unforgivable, as LM had been warned about this, and (in my view) simply failed to put the required importance on keeping weight down. Perhaps the success of their lift system gave them a false sense of security, I really can't say. Putting that right cost the programme at least a year, probably two. The airframe had to be basically redesigned in detail.
The next big problem LM hit was failure to get the mission system software integration to an acceptable level of maturity early enough. Having got behind the drag curve, they have stayed there for some while.
Like so many other military aircraft programmes, the JSF suffered from excessive optimism over schedules - the original IOC dates were really science fiction. A bit like Typhoon's. And F-22's. And so on....it's a common failing across programmes.
Hope this little snapshot helps - but please watch the normal warning - these are really my opinions, and shouldn't be treated as gospel.
Best regards as ever to those who really do know what they are talking about,
Engines
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Interesting, the ground is definitely shifting under the F-35. Interested in this fantastic sharing of data, that will be by non-stealthy L-16 I take it? Or the yet unfunded new non-stealthy network gateway platform?
Stop comparing the F-35 with any other stealth fifth generation fighter - Business Insider
"........On the heels of the Air Force's decision to declare its F-35 variant ready for combat, the head of the sister-service branch was asked to compare America's newest fighter jet to China's J-20 on Wednesday.
"When I hear about an F-35 versus J-20, it's almost an irrelevant comparison,"Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said during a Pentagon briefing........
"Fifth generation technology, it's no longer about a platform, it's about a family of systems and it's about a network and that's what gives us an asymmetric advantage," Gen. Goldfein said. "I think you'll see us focusing far more on the family of systems and how we connect them together and far less on individual platforms."
Stop comparing the F-35 with any other stealth fifth generation fighter - Business Insider
"........On the heels of the Air Force's decision to declare its F-35 variant ready for combat, the head of the sister-service branch was asked to compare America's newest fighter jet to China's J-20 on Wednesday.
"When I hear about an F-35 versus J-20, it's almost an irrelevant comparison,"Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said during a Pentagon briefing........
"Fifth generation technology, it's no longer about a platform, it's about a family of systems and it's about a network and that's what gives us an asymmetric advantage," Gen. Goldfein said. "I think you'll see us focusing far more on the family of systems and how we connect them together and far less on individual platforms."
12 Aug article on Defense News:-
Pentagon Grants Lockheed About $1B To Stem F-35 Lot 9 Production Costs
Pentagon Grants Lockheed About $1B To Stem F-35 Lot 9 Production Costs
12 Aug article on Defense News:-
Pentagon Grants Lockheed About $1B To Stem F-35 Lot 9 Production Costs
Pentagon Grants Lockheed About $1B To Stem F-35 Lot 9 Production Costs
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
F-35C DT-III USS George Washington 14 Aug 2016 Start
PHOTO: http://www.combataircraft.net/wp-con...49006484_o.jpg
“A series of photos posted by the US Navy this afternoon have depicted that the DT-III period of sea trials for the F-35C Lightning II are under way. Jets from VX-23 ‘Salty Dogs’ and VFA-101 ‘Grim Reapers’ have embarked the USS George Washington in the Atlantic for the third period of sea trials for the carrier variant (CV) of the F-35. They are thought to have embarked on Sunday August 14. Photos by US Navy/MCS2C Kris R. Lindstrom”
Back to the boat ? DT-III starts for F-35C | Combat Aircraft
“A series of photos posted by the US Navy this afternoon have depicted that the DT-III period of sea trials for the F-35C Lightning II are under way. Jets from VX-23 ‘Salty Dogs’ and VFA-101 ‘Grim Reapers’ have embarked the USS George Washington in the Atlantic for the third period of sea trials for the carrier variant (CV) of the F-35. They are thought to have embarked on Sunday August 14. Photos by US Navy/MCS2C Kris R. Lindstrom”
Back to the boat ? DT-III starts for F-35C | Combat Aircraft
Interesting that the lack of a tailplane is sometines cited as one reason the MDD/BAe proposal was rejected by the USAF. BAe friends say it was really the NIH syndrome.
PHOTO: http://www.combataircraft.net/wp-con...49006484_o.jpg
“A series of photos posted by the US Navy this afternoon have depicted that the DT-III period of sea trials for the F-35C Lightning II are under way. Jets from VX-23 ‘Salty Dogs’ and VFA-101 ‘Grim Reapers’ have embarked the USS George Washington in the Atlantic for the third period of sea trials for the carrier variant (CV) of the F-35. They are thought to have embarked on Sunday August 14. Photos by US Navy/MCS2C Kris R. Lindstrom”
Back to the boat ? DT-III starts for F-35C | Combat Aircraft
“A series of photos posted by the US Navy this afternoon have depicted that the DT-III period of sea trials for the F-35C Lightning II are under way. Jets from VX-23 ‘Salty Dogs’ and VFA-101 ‘Grim Reapers’ have embarked the USS George Washington in the Atlantic for the third period of sea trials for the carrier variant (CV) of the F-35. They are thought to have embarked on Sunday August 14. Photos by US Navy/MCS2C Kris R. Lindstrom”
Back to the boat ? DT-III starts for F-35C | Combat Aircraft
Thanks for posting. I note that 2 of the 3 aircraft shown in the images have the weapons pylons mounted. #73 from VX-23 is shown with 3 stores pylons on each wing, while #123 from the Grim Reapers is in clean configuration. Would be interesting to see if this det includes some operations with wing stores.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Thanks for posting. I note that 2 of the 3 aircraft shown in the images have the weapons pylons mounted. #73 from VX-23 is shown with 3 stores pylons on each wing, while #123 from the Grim Reapers is in clean configuration. Would be interesting to see if this det includes some operations with wing stores.
Navy Schedules F-35C for Third Set of Carrier Trials 02 Aug 2016
SEAPOWER Magazine Online
__________________________________________
Carrier Quals, CODs & Clippers June 2016 Rick Burgess; Air International
"The US Navy’s F-35C Lightning II fleet replacement squadron (FRS) is scheduled for its first carrier qualifications in the new jet this June.
Strike Fighter Squadron 101 (VFA-101) ‘Grim Reapers’ based at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is planning to send a carrier qualification (CQ) detachment to an aircraft carrier to conduct the first day qualifications for its instructor pilots. The squadron’s commanding officer, Captain James Christie, will be making his first F-35C carrier landings and catapult launches. Christie said the detachment is likely to include four F-35Cs, ten pilots and some maintenance personnel. He expects to send out another CQ detachment in November for both day and night carrier qualifications...."
Air International Magazine June 2016 http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=23058 (PDF 220Kb)
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 16th Aug 2016 at 16:37. Reason: title + article
Is there a Marine interloper?
In post #9597 the aircraft pictured is painted 'Grim Reapers' & 'VF-101' yet has 'Marines' painted on the aft fuselage. As far as I can see, the other 'Grim Reaper' aircraft in the linked article have 'Navy' painted there (For example see image #1 in the article).
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@SanDiego
One of the stated purposes of DT-III is to test asymmetric load outs on recovery, unusual approaches, and other non-standardness... So I thinking we'll see whatever weps that are cleared to be on the aircraft tested in various configs.
The Marines have taken delivery of at least one F-35C, but then again during development the jets and pilots have been switching off to accommodate mx and other scheduling pressures. I think VF-101 is the designated training squadron for the variant, and not service specific.
It will be interesting to get *real* (rather than shill) reports of availabilities, how many jets are *up* at one time, etc. The Charlies have been the more reliable version in the past, so hopefully that continues.
One of the stated purposes of DT-III is to test asymmetric load outs on recovery, unusual approaches, and other non-standardness... So I thinking we'll see whatever weps that are cleared to be on the aircraft tested in various configs.
The Marines have taken delivery of at least one F-35C, but then again during development the jets and pilots have been switching off to accommodate mx and other scheduling pressures. I think VF-101 is the designated training squadron for the variant, and not service specific.
It will be interesting to get *real* (rather than shill) reports of availabilities, how many jets are *up* at one time, etc. The Charlies have been the more reliable version in the past, so hopefully that continues.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that the lack of a tailplane is sometines cited as one reason the MDD/BAe proposal was rejected by the USAF. BAe friends say it was really the NIH syndrome.
The MDC proposal was rejected because the STOVL version was not single engine. It required a separate lift engine because MDC/BAE was unable to make the gas coupled lift fan system work. Lockheed used a mechanically coupled lift fan and was able to make it work.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Final flight tests underway for F-35C, the Navy's newest combat aircraft
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGc4Npg1oy0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGc4Npg1oy0