The F-35 Thread

[Maior]

The F-22 operates the way the USAF needs it to operate ... they tend to iron out real problems very fast.

 

Well, from what I read coming from professionals in the industry, this problem is not so easy to solve as the f-22's already modular structure was not built to "play" with other assets the way the JSF was designed to. F-22s are effectively playing catch-up technology wise.

Oh, I'm sure that eventually, they'll solve the issues they're having however, it remains to be seen if in this year's RF, the F-22 JSF combo will be the Dream team or, if the F-22 will be left lagging in the joint operations part due to trouble in communication and data sharing.

 

I'd really like to see the JSF artillery director role working but that may take some time.

[GGTharos]

From what I hear from pilots, what they need to be working is working.

[Maior]

From what I hear from pilots, what they need to be working is working.

 

 

Well, It'll be a RF showdown it seems ^^

[swift]

HD

Lt. Col. Benjamin Bishop, the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron director of operations, adjusts his helmet before his first sortie in an F-35A Lightning II at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., March 6. Bishop is among the first pilots to begin the official training that began in January. Bishop and other 422nd TES pilots will begin operational testing of the joint strike fighter later this year at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. (U.S. Air Force photo/Samuel King Jr.)

 

HD

Lt. Col. Benjamin Bishop, the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron director of operations, completes preflight checks before his first sortie in an F-35A Lightning II at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., March 6. Bishop is among the first pilots to begin the official training that began in January. Bishop and other 422nd TES pilots will begin operational testing of the joint strike fighter later this year at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. (U.S. Air Force photo/Samuel King Jr.)

[tomcatter]

I think those images are nice, but also think that when your product is far from were should be you definitely need good photos to convince your costumers.

From "The aviationist" blog:

 

"According to an article published by the Washington Times, the F-35A, the Conventional Take Off and Landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter, would be defeated in aerial combat because of his current shortcomings."

 

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2013/03/20130306-air-forces-f-35a-not-ready-for-combat.html

[Invader ZIM]

Actually, no one is even claiming it's ready for combat or training. The fact is that right now only Test and Evaluation Squadrons are handling the aircraft to get a feeling of what this aircraft will be capable of.

 

Operational Testing will happen later this year. Mr. Winslow Wheeler knows not of what he speaks.

 

 

http://www.dvidshub.net/news/103069/nellis-pilots-take-first-step-toward-f-35-operational-testing

 

According to Nellis, four F-35s will begin arriving soon. The 422nd TES will add the F-35A to its list of aircraft they execute command-directed operational test and evaluation for like the A/OA-10, F-15C, F-15E, F-16CM and F-22A hardware, software, and weapons upgrades prior to combat Air Force release. The squadron conducts tactics development, foreign materiel exploitation and special access programs to optimize system combat capability.

 

"We will develop the tactics and technical procedures for the F-35 and how it fits in the bigger airpower picture for the U.S.," said Bishop about the work ahead of him after graduating here leading OT for the fifth generation aircraft.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Invader ZIM

[Weta43]

I guess there's a healthy dose of Schadenfreude in this, but from leaked Pentagon reports....

 

[Fatal flaws within the cockpit of the US military’s most expensive fighter jet ever are causing further problems with the Pentagon’s dubious F-35 program.

 

Just weeks after a fleet of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters was grounded for reasons unrelated, a new report from the Pentagon warns that any pilot that boards the pricey aircraft places himself in danger without even going into combat.

 

 

In a leaked memo from the Defense Department’s director of the Operational Test and Evaluation Directorate to the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon official prefaces a report on the F-35 by cautioning that even training missions cannot be safely performed on board the aircraft at this time.

 

 

“The training management system lags in development compared to the rest of the Integrated Training Center and does not yet have all planned functionality,” the report reads in part.

 

 

In other sections of the lengthy DoD analysis, Operational Test and Evaluation Directorate Director J. Michael Gilmore outlines a number of flaws that jeopardize the safety of any pilot that enters the aircraft.

 

 

“The out-of-cockpit visibility in the F-35A is less than other Air Force fighter aircraft,” one excerpt reads.

 

 

Elsewhere, Gilmore includes quotes from pilots commenting after test missions onboard the aircraft: “The head rest is too large and will impede aft [rear] visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements,” said one. “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned [down] every time” in dogfights, remarked another.

 

 

“Aft visibility could turn out to be a significant problem for all F-35 pilots in the future,” the Pentagon admits.

 

 

In one chart included in the report, the Pentagon says there are eight crucial flaws with the aircraft that have raises serious red flags within the Department of Defense. The plane’s lack of maturity, reduced pilot situational awareness during an emergency and the risk of the aircraft’s fuel barriers catching fire are also cited, as is the likelihood of a pilot in distress becoming unable to escape his aircraft during an emergency — or perhaps drowning in event of an evacuation over water.

 

 

The Pilot Vehicle Interface, or PVI, is also listed as not up to snuff. Documented deficiencies regarding the F-35 pilot’s helmet-mounted display and other aspects of the PVI are named, and the result could mean grave consequences.

 

 

“There is no confidence that the pilot can perform critical tasks safely,” the report reads.

 

 

The latest news regarding the F-35s comes less than one month after a separate incident forced the Department of Defense to ground their entire arsenal of the fighter jets. In February, jet makers Lockheed Martin issued a statement acknowledging that a routine inspection on a test plane at Edwards Air Force Base in California turned up cracked turbine blade.

 

 

“Safety is always our first consideration, and the joint inspection team is focused on ensuring the integrity of the engines across the entire fleet so the F-35s can safely return to flight as soon as possible,” the manufacture told the media. In response, Joint Program Office spokeswoman Kyra Hawn confirmed that all F-35 flight operations were suspended as a precautionary measure “until the investigation is complete and the cause of the blade crack is fully understood.” Just weeks later, though, a new report is already causing fresh problems for the F-35 program.

 

 

Each F-35 fighter jet is valued at $238 million and, according to recent estimates, the entire operation will cost the country $1 trillion in order to keep the jets up and running through 2050.

 

I guess there are a number of planes that have looked like they were going to be lemons that actually ended up being useful aircraft once their initial design flaws were ironed out...

Edited March 8, 2013 by Weta43

[GGTharos]

The rear visibility argument will go out of style when they iron out the DAS.

[Kaktus29]

i have a feeling this F-35 trashing leak memo's are an effort of the military to put the screws on lockheed for dragging their feet and shamelessly pocketing billions of dollars of money for the taxpayers. ... it could be a propaganda show to put pressure on them as if to tell them -look lockheed, your product sucks, unless you do this and that and fast etc..and with your own money because of delays etc, we will be forced from the public to do this and that" ..

 

its a cheap ploy to put pressure on lockheed from the enraged public who will read how below-par capabilities this plane is..

 

i doubt its soo terrible as the memo describes.. yes, it has many problems, and most likely it is still 6 years away from any combat role, but they are trashing it too much at this point..it could backfire on popular anger from the voters ..

 

on one hand if they rush things this plane will really be below-par other 5gen planes meaning it will be a strategic failure considering the billions spent into this..but on the other hand, if they give lockheed free hands this thing could drag ad-infinitum until usa declares bankruptcy and beyond)lol..

 

its a pickle to say for sure.. but this pentagon memo is not a real description of the plane..

but if it IS real description, than my god this ugly plane(lets face it, it is ugly) really is a disaster in the making..or should i say ending..

[tomcatter]

I don´t know what is worse then:

That the plane is so immature after all the problems and delays that is facing or that the DoD have to leak a false official document to put some pressure on a company that alredy has a contract signed with the same DoD.

A shame for the citizens in either case.

[Kaktus29]

actually now after reading all of the memo leaked i must say it could hold water.. meaning,it could be more or less an accurate statements of how things are as of now..

 

this total mess is to be understood, it only makes sense.. they are building the F-35 project backwards since early 2000's.. the plan was to build it faster, so the idea was to build it and then afterwards just add to the plane whatever was needed and no problem..

 

reality is, this is the worst kind of approach to build things.. because it leaves you no room for any drastic change in the airframe, and other very hard to change elements in the machine.. Lets take the tail hook for instance, ..they discovered a problem that the tail hook couldn't grab the cable's on the simulated carrier deck-for it was to close to the landing gear..so, changing the tail hook to accommodate this is easy yes?it ended up a nightmarish affair.. after changing the tail hook to be longer it changes the angle at which the grabbing of wire occurs thusly putting more stress on the airframe on those parts that were not intended.. now they need to reinforce those parts and reduce weight elsewhere to remain same weight overall.. by doing this you come into problems with other systems like fuel cells, electrical wiring.. after you change those you have to change etc etc..

 

so you see, its just chaos .. you can't build anything like this.. its like lets build the 2 floor first and then we will build the 1st floor next.. you can't reverse logic and gravity ..but with F-35 they did.. now they are researching this plane backwards..

 

so far the plane has been limited to gentle stick movements, not flying in bad weather,avoiding dark clouds, +5.5G, and 40.000 feet altitude and speed limited to 1.2 mach max., .. basically F-4 can knock this thing out in dogfight if a mock up would be arranged..

 

Radar has glitches, helmet mounted system is making more confusion and dizziness than clarity for pilots.. and the whole project is playing catch up..since just as they install something in, new technology comes along and they have to put new plans to make room for this or that thing to be replaced and in doing so complicating the whole engineering effort even more..

 

this really is a cock-up of epic proportions.. what a waste of resources.. 500 BilBils and still going strong..

[aaron886]

^ TL;DR. It's not as if you've broke any new ground in a 140 page thread, so I doubt I missed much.

[Maior]

BTW, that "leaked memo" which no reputable news source has yet to cover that way, refers to the Block 1A aircraft which has no EODAS, practically only Navigation avionics, limited helmet mounted sighting system, in general, no combat capability. Their experience is completely different than that of the pilots and chiefs of staff who are flying Block 2A now.

 

Here's the memo:

http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf

 

It's simply another case of bashers of this project cherry picking information from somewhere without bothering to read the whole thing through, failing to understand the information or just resorting to any means necessary to try and sell papers.

 

Even though I like RT news for some of their content, their "military cover" is rather bleak.

[Cedaway]

Wow, and the USAF simulator's Flight Model, Engine model and electronic system model seems to be inaccurate also! (Ctrl-F that sentence to find it out: 'Simulated flameout (SFO) approaches training in the FMS may not be adequate')

 

That between other problems, there is loooong way to go to see actual F-35 squads up for combat readiness...

[Maior]

FYI, Here's an interesting article I picked up from another forum:

 

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.pdf

[Invader ZIM]

Thanks for that article Maior, an interesting read.

 

I find it pretty amusing that with most Western countries there's a certain openess and access to public information (right or wrong) about these projects that let's people nitpick for years about every possible failing of a new aircraft if they aren't in support of it.

 

Yet I can't help but wonder what kind of logistical and technological nightmares those Sukhoi guys are having with the T-50. As in the East it's difficult to find "Leaked" "classified" memo's that point out that they aren't getting the output power of their radar as high as first anticipated, or that their IRST doesn't have the resolution and noise equivalent temperature differential that they had hoped for.

 

But if Putin says it's faster and stealthier than an F-22, then I guess it is :lol:

[Kaktus29]

F-35 project has been dragging for decades now, T-50 just recenlty started and the plane is up and flying ... i would say russian simplistic and engineering approach will make it very hard to match the F-35 cock-up-ness ..

 

if funds are provided T-50 will be finished in 2-5 years.. which will mean the whole project took 6-9 years max..

 

but if you want to believe russians have problems with flying planes in dark clouds ..be my guest.. :))

[Maior]

lol. Yeah if putins says so :D

 

Anyway, The Russians are still having trouble with engines and RADAR so it's not like the project won't have cost over-runs. Their way of developing aircraft does provide some safeguard against major slippages as they evolve the existing airframes rather than scratch build them. Not everyone can afford the US way of making war ^^. Their defence budget is 10X smaller than the US so, compromises have to be made. Still, quite interesting to see what these new planes will be capable of and if countries wouldn't just be better off buying Super-Tucanos instead (unless they're planning WWIII) ^^

[Pyroflash]

F-35 project has been dragging for decades now, T-50 just recenlty started and the plane is up and flying ... i would say russian simplistic and engineering approach will make it very hard to match the F-35 cock-up-ness ..

 

if funds are provided T-50 will be finished in 2-5 years.. which will mean the whole project took 6-9 years max..

 

but if you want to believe russians have problems with flying planes in dark clouds ..be my guest.. :))

 

EVERYONE has problems flying planes in dark clouds. A T-50 is not going to survive in a CB.

 

Also 6-9 years that you know of. It is entirely possibly and even likely that the Russians have been developing this aircraft for MUCH, MUCH longer than you know.

[Invader ZIM]

If you mean by decades based on when the requirement for an aircraft such as the F-35 was proposed, then perhaps it's not too far behind the T-50, which the Soviet Union outlined a requirement for in the late 80's.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

 

But it's a matter of different horses for different courses. The F-35 requirement is to replace a wide range of in service legacy aircraft, from three different branches of the armed forces, each with different requrements on the airframe. So I would expect there to be more difficulties and delays for such a large program, and for that program to be very expensive.

 

The F-22 requirement was outlined in 1981, with prototypes flying by 1991, versus the late 80's Russian requirement to prototype flights of the T-50 in 2010. Both needed an air dominance fighter, but both had different economic situations to deal with.

 

In this thread because of the freedom of information we're able to complain about the size of the headrest in the F-35 being a possible detriment to dogfighting capablility, but with the T-50 all you can find is: "The T-50's maiden flight had been repeatedly postponed since early 2007 as the aircraft encountered unspecified technical problems. Alexander Zelin admitted as recently as August 2009 that problems with the engine and in technical research remained unsolved."

 

Without any other details or criticism of the project's longevity to get to an unproven prototype that has only flown 16 times without it's Radar and advanced avionics, I think they have a loooong way to go yet.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Invader ZIM

[Kaktus29]

it would seem you do not understand history.. after USSR collapse Russia was struggling to find the money to buy bread for citizens, army didn't get any money, tanks going into chechnya went unarmed, soldiers unpaid, helicopters flying with no spare equipments..and no research done whatsoever.. Su-34 frozen for 12 years, submarine project frozen for 12 years.etcetc.. to imply secretly russia was building T-50 all along is absurd..

 

the fact Russia managed to put the T-50 project into the air is nothing short of a miracle.. the chinese i understand because at the moment they are loaded and can afford 20-50 billion dollars worth of projects..not so much for Russia.. but still much better than in the 1990's when times were the darkest..

 

what i meant was, compared with F-35 yes, T-50 seems light years ahead) for instance the helmet mounted system works fine and that is from the 80's.. while F-35 is yet to get it right, while F-22 doesn't even have it AFAIK

[Maior]

Without any other details or criticism of the project's longevity to get to an unproven prototype that has only flown 16 times without it's Radar and advanced avionics, I think they have a loooong way to go yet.

 

They're making fleet wide upgrades to both Su and MiG airframes, created two 4+ gen aircraft currently both on order AND the Su-35 orders were doubled so now, it's 40 MiG-35 and 90 Su-35. These plans are intended to keep the VVS up till 2030. That should give an idea of how long till the T-50 is ready to perform.

 

Note:

It'll probably be before 2030 however, the fact that the Russian wigs are thinking on a 2030 timeline is indicative that things are not as smooth as Putin wants us to believe they are. Also, the JSF project achieved the milestones the T-50 has so far in 2008 or 2009 so, you can expect the T-50 to be operational 4 or 5 years after the JSF.

 

Addendum:

To be fair, MiG orders were to boost MiG funding and stimulate production for foreign interested parties. Plus, they'll be deployed without AESA so it's more of a bailout kind of order not an important part of the defence network. Which is odd since the naval version (MiG-29K) is already being produced for the Indian and Russian navies with the Chinese wanting in on the deal.

[Invader ZIM]

I understand what you mean Kaktus29, that's why I mentioned

Both needed an air dominance fighter, but both had different economic situations to deal with.

Indicating that in the 90's I know the situation was bleak for Russia, not so bleak for the U.S. at the time.

 

But what I'm saying is you had a couple companies in the mean time come up with prototypes to answer the Russian requirement during the rough times the Su-47, Mikoyan 1.44, and in 2002 Sukhoi was chosen, so there was some development to meet the future stealthy fighter requirement set forth in the late 80's.

 

So considering the delays and the economic troubles I agree creating the T-50 is a big achievement, but it's also a different requirement for the Russian air force versus the F-35 and the requirements it's multiple armed services and potential air forces has set for it.

 

The helmet mounted system for the T-50 is proven, and ahead of it's time, but the one for the F-35 is not the same type of system, so it's going to have teething troubles like any new technology.

 

I think the problem is that we get bombarded daily by naysayers on both sides of the fence in the news and reports on how something is such a failure, without looking closer into the details and seeing that things are progressing as intended and in the end a product will be created that does answer the requirements it's resepective country sets forth for it.

 

Edit: I know what you mean Maior, thanks for the info, I saw the plans for production of the T-50 and was surprised how far ahead before T-50 production was expected versus the testing phase it's in now. It indicates that it's not an easy road for any country to make a plane that uses advanced new and unproven technologies that are reliable enough to be used by developer's military as a front line deterrent.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Invader ZIM

[Kaktus29]

i don't understand ..the 2030 limit.. yes, the new Su-35, and Su-30 will of course last till 2030 easily.. that doesn't mean T-50 will come online in 2030..

 

the way i see it, Russians understand that 5th gen. planes are very exotic planes, not really to be used all the time, but more of a "tip of a sword" planes ..and not the fleet of planes you need to do most of the job -after the tip of the sword does the job..

 

i think USA thinks the same way.. of course having more money means they can easily print those 2400+ F-35 when they get available to do the lion share of combat in the battlefield.. Russia is moving to a more cheaper version where its seems it will be more like 30-70% ratio of stealth vs. non-stealth planes fleet.. the 30% with the help of 70% non stealth accomplishes the main mission of air-superiority or at least doing the main damage in the first phase, then if successful-and you have to be successful-you continue with cheaper planes since there is no enemy in the air anymore..

 

F-22 are the same thing.. the workload of this planes will be 3-5 days non-stop presence in the enemy airspace.. after that, they can go back to hangar..its over for them.. air dominance achieved...enemy planes destroyed.. after that you can control the airspace with drones and F-16 ..

 

so, thining strategically is it really important to have 100% 5gen. fighter fleet? ..of course not..

 

i think of 5gen. fighter like a scalpel.. you don't need many scalpels to cut, one is usually more then enough for operating on the patient..but you do need lots of blood tranfusion, clamps, stitching etc..

 

now, to go back to when can we speculate T-50 comes online? i think it can come before 2018 easily.. but it will not be 100% complete..meaning some modifications will follow like in many Russian planes in the past.. but one benefit is, the planes accomodate any new modification easily.. Mig-27 saw many modifications, same airframe, and easily to do this.. the way F-35 is made its hard to do those changes that are if the memo leaks are true constructional engineering problems.. something you can't just change like that..

 

if you get it right from the start with the airframe i think this is the lion's share of work.. of course then the engine is the second most important thing.. right now, as far as i know russians are using the Su-35 engines..tunning them up and making them stronger..but still a new engine they are developing and yes you are right it could be a long time before that comes online-maybe 10 years.. but this one they use now with small modifications can make him supercruise..the question is how much..if its 1.2 its not really that much.. everybody is gunning for the 1.6 which gives the best ratio of speed vs. tear and duress of the airframe.. faster it wears the plane too much, slower and you loose that speed advantage ..

 

In the end of the day, this planes are build for one thing.. offence or defence.. .. in russia's case defence .. if russia doesn't convince US that it has a plane of value it puts itself in a risky position where some kind of invasion could happen against them-like the one we are seeing in syria today.. this planes are the harbinger of security.. nobody is questioning US supremacy, .. i don't see mexico getting ready to invade US.. but Russia on the other hand much more dangerous situation..

 

some historians are saying that bad army state of the USSR before the Hitler invasion was one of the most important aspects of hitler deciding to attack.. weakness attracts agression..its natural.. a lion does not hunt an elephant for a reason-because it can very well die in the process..

 

Russia is in peculiar position since they have to make sure US understands that Russian planes are capable.. when one doesn't understand this, it evokes aggression .. this has nothing about US being bad its just natural law.. when the pilgrims came to US they killed the native americans for one simple reason.. pilgrims were armed with guns, the natives with a bow.. it doesn't take a genius to figure out how long before the gun people start using ... well, the guns they own against the inferior race..

 

so, i'm not saying Russian planes offer better this or that.. but are formidable enough to lets all of us hope for the love of life and god to prevent a tragic miscalculation from the superior weapons and nations in the west..

Edited March 12, 2013 by Kaktus29

[Invader ZIM]

That was pretty well said Kaktus,

 

I feel your right when it comes to not wanting to show a sign of weakness that might invite unwanted attention from another country.

 

 

This idea pretty much explains the Iranian photoshop stealth aircraft we've all seen the past few months. :)

 

I'm guessing 2018 for the first operational T-50's might be a good guess as well, but perhaps by 2022 there might be enough aircraft for a few squadrons, it's amazing how long this process is with all sides in getting new operational aircraft.

 

But again, well said and explained, I'm glad we can have civil discussions from many different countries and points of view here. Sometimes we don't always word things the right way, or there's miscommunication from not being able to see the other persons expression when they say something in text format, but for the most part, you guys are good people. :D

Edited March 11, 2013 by Invader ZIM