U.S. grounds entire F-35 fleet pending engine inspections
Remington 1858
Active member
The F-35 is an aircraft that communicates with it's host via satellite from anywhere in the world. The engine and other critical components notify it's masters of any real or potential maintenance issues. The USAF maintainers say that the F-35 is the "whinny airplane". It complains about everything, and believe me when it does, the USAF crews have to drop everything and fix it even if it is a fly in the engine intake. This airplane is just being introduced into squadron service and there is a "de-bugging" process that will go on for sometime. The USAF doesn't want to lose one of these planes, so they are treating them with kid gloves.However, it's not like these are the only planes in USAF service, they have plenty of others, so a temporary grounding to resolve maintenance issues is no big deal.
Interesting for the stealth and electronics thy gave up a fair amount of speed. Its only about 2/3 as fast as the F-15
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
The Premise of Stealth I fear however, and any project coordinator with foresight or Congressional Defense Committee member should take into account the very real possibility that research into stealth neutralizing weapons , since on par are capable of being cheaper, may outpace Stealth development itself. Turning the F 35 Into a smooth sided Turkey if our adversaries can abandon building comparable stealth planes to match, and just build capable conventional fighters, as well as using the time effort and money saved to build more types of anti stealth weaponry.
Also if the United States is the only serious proponent of stealth and the only nation force feeding it's armed services to live with it.
Then if I were a potential adversary I would work with other nations to build weapons to take out this innovation or avoid it all together. Giving me a degree of freedom in find ways to neutralize it.
Just an thought.
Also if the United States is the only serious proponent of stealth and the only nation force feeding it's armed services to live with it.
Then if I were a potential adversary I would work with other nations to build weapons to take out this innovation or avoid it all together. Giving me a degree of freedom in find ways to neutralize it.
Just an thought.
F-35
I believe that only ~95 have been built a reasonably limited number of F-35 fighter to date. They appear to want to eventually but all their eggs in the stealth basket using this fighter for the US Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and then share a version of the plane with our allies there after.
Both the F15 and F16 are considerable faster and very well armed. The F-35 is slated to replace the F15, F16 and F22 in the years ahead. The F15 however will still stay in service until at least 2025.
I believe that only ~95 have been built a reasonably limited number of F-35 fighter to date. They appear to want to eventually but all their eggs in the stealth basket using this fighter for the US Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and then share a version of the plane with our allies there after.
Both the F15 and F16 are considerable faster and very well armed. The F-35 is slated to replace the F15, F16 and F22 in the years ahead. The F15 however will still stay in service until at least 2025.
Stealth does not make the plane invisible but much harder to detect. The slower speed is probably to reduce the propablity of Infra Red detection. The higher the speed the hotter the plane and the engines gets the easier it is to detect with IR. If I'm not mistaken the Russians are betting on IR to detect stealth planes.
Stealth is not the F-35's best bet, it's the battlefield awareness. This is a force multplier.
Stealth is not the F-35's best bet, it's the battlefield awareness. This is a force multplier.
The only thing that concerns me is that except for some F-16's they are putting all their eggs in one basket. The older technology has proven itself time and again in many dogfights and fighter-bomber-runs and nobody can beat it. I worked as a Electronics-Engineer for > 15 years most of it with military electronics and an intimately familiar with the Kiss principle: to a degree mind you: "keep it simple stupid". That is not to say to not make use of technology but as the complexity increases the amount of unknowns that can be covered by testing becomes questionable. Of course the leak for a virgin product is to be expected.
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
The F 22 also showed catastrophic oxygen system problems theorized to have resulted in the death of an Airman in Alaska few years back, judging by past development cycles for aircraft such as the F 15 or F 16. Having dangerous problems like this after over 20 years development is completely unacceptable. Congress has debated that same question many times.
Honestly I don't think you should ever try to build a airplane on the assembly line and design and test it at the same exact time, it's cheaper and safer to work out bugs on a prototype for 10 years than have 10 half finished planes on the factory floor from 2008 for instance that need to be retrofitted with each redesign sky rocketing the cost.
Then have 10 built in 2009 planes for example that need another retrofit with the original ten 10 from 2008 off to the side blowing the cost even more sky high.
Sounds really complex and like a ton of paper work doesn't it? That's because it is, this whole program makes the F 22 look like a dress rehearsal, and that program still is suffering serious cuts and setbacks. Not to mention every one hour of flight time is accompanied by at least 8 hours maintenance. Imagine strenuous combat situations, how long before the hundreds of systems inboard being to require serious maintenance? What if an F 22 receives shrapnel damage from AA (stranger things have happened) or a new Missile hit? Now you have to fly the whole thing or ship it back in pieces stateside for months of repair work.
Point being, Congress gave in to manufacture pressure, and wrote a blank check, now they see it's a dud and it's far too embarrassing to admit it is , and far to much overspending has occurred that now we are just trying minimize the bleeding and deal with it.
Australia last I checked cast such serious doubt of the F 35 then contemplated pulling out. Senior Members of the Canadian Air force are struggling to throw the plane out of Canada's future force composition all together.
The only one's really spin doctoring it is seems are test pilots and Lockheed, who have said sorry for overruns so many times it's seems to be a adjective forever linked to the plane.
We could have built 100 Stealth like new Generation F 16s with the money spent on the Air Force's Prototype F 35 redesigns alone.
The Engine heating problems are so severe even in certain cruising speed scenarios that hot climate operations and speed restrictions are in place on the F 35 to keep the engine from damaging the adhesives in the airframe. So much for low IR signature.
Plus in the Case of the Royal Navy there is concern over the Plane's exhaust it would case burn damage to equipment on the flight decks of their carriers.
If I were a Russian arms salesmen I'd be throwing new generation Missile technology that hone's on IR signatures all over my sales ads. Effective or not I'd be having a sale's field day.
Countries that signed on, are either backing out or cutting orders, members of project allocation are showing embarrassment.
My opinion? This plane and Lockheed got the DOD and Ministry of Defense excited in bed but then rolled over and went to sleep.
Last edited:
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
How many times will this aircraft suffer delay after delay over simple issues.
Let alone how would such a complex, fragile and expensive machine function under continuous flight of combat operations? From melting adhesives, to tires that wear out and need replacing two to three times more quickly than contemporary airframes, especially on the Naval and VTOL models when compared to the older plane's it is supposed to replace.
These are things that this late, years behind schedule, are simple fixes and oversights that should've been taken care of in the design phase. Such as the night running lights not meeting FAA standards a few years ago grounding all planes from flying at night in commercial Airspace in the U.S.
This is more proof of the obvious problems of concurrency.
Why the Pentagon bought something that has not even been tested by the manufacturer prior to acquisition with no solid production design ready from the start is beyond me.
The J.S.F. program as a whole seems to have accomplished it's main focus: spend money.
Let alone how would such a complex, fragile and expensive machine function under continuous flight of combat operations? From melting adhesives, to tires that wear out and need replacing two to three times more quickly than contemporary airframes, especially on the Naval and VTOL models when compared to the older plane's it is supposed to replace.
These are things that this late, years behind schedule, are simple fixes and oversights that should've been taken care of in the design phase. Such as the night running lights not meeting FAA standards a few years ago grounding all planes from flying at night in commercial Airspace in the U.S.
This is more proof of the obvious problems of concurrency.
Why the Pentagon bought something that has not even been tested by the manufacturer prior to acquisition with no solid production design ready from the start is beyond me.
The J.S.F. program as a whole seems to have accomplished it's main focus: spend money.
compare modern fighters
Remember the F-35 is not completed. Anything this complex with stealth and all the electronics systems will take time to debug. When done I'm sure it's performance will be superior to that of the SU35, although likely more costly
Also remember this is not the USA's best multirole fighter that honor goes to the F-22 Raptor the best fighter yet to be developed to date.
Remember the F-35 is not completed. Anything this complex with stealth and all the electronics systems will take time to debug. When done I'm sure it's performance will be superior to that of the SU35, although likely more costly
Also remember this is not the USA's best multirole fighter that honor goes to the F-22 Raptor the best fighter yet to be developed to date.
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
In the case of the F 22 it's the best fighter on paper to date, but the most difficult to field and difficult to maintain par the F 35. As for the F 35 even members of product allocation have admitted the idea of Concurrency is a disaster. There huge mistakes made allocating this airplane. Now it shows.
This contributes to the possibility that this airplane will be the last air to air airplane that is manned to be purchased by the U.S. Airforce alone.
These problems are very late in the development cycle, this should've been fixed in the test phase and the test phase should have been concluded prior to production, not at the same time.
Here are key problems of concurrency:
- Instead of a small group of prototypes being fixed and applied to a few models for a fraction of the cost. We are non stop retrofitting and design changing a larger group of production planes all the time.
- We have now multiple groups off the production line at different stages of redesign that is ballooning cost out of control.
- This idea is not a common design or production practice, and is proving to be incredibly inefficient.
As for the Su 35BM. Aerodynamically it is better, carriers more weapons, cheaper , faster, better acceleration. Also China's copied J 31 has one huge advantage in itself': No fat stubby fuselage with short stubby wings, why does the F 35 have this? Marines wanted a lift fan... Now all three models are fat, and aerodynamically shaped like a brick. Also with only one engine, it's difficult to use thrust vectoring in a twin engine plane for VTOL purposes, also more dangerous.
China didn't just copy the airframe, they fixed some it's major issues. Although the software is undoubtedly far far behind F 35 standards, being that the F 35 isn't even functioning correctly it begs the question if that even matters.
Here are some key issues to consider with this Lockheed Martin Advertising success story:
The plane cannot loiter, unlike the A 10 which it is supposed to replace. A 10's often use all 1,100 rounds of ammo on CAS missions, the F 35 moves faster at low altitudes and only carries 180 rounds. The F 35's stealthy skin is many times more vulnerable to AAA fire. F 35 carries much less ordnance than the A 10.
How can this airplane provide close effective ground support in the future? And where will that support for Ground Forces come from.
Also in the air to air sense, the all seeing cameras which seems tacked on as a fix for the lack of rear visibility along with the half a million dollar helmet system, is either lagging behind real time with rapid head movements of the pilot, or low quality textures in the images, much less than what a pilot can spot with the naked eye at great distances. Such as incoming enemy aircraft.
Also once again, that giant lift fan is the reason the F 35's rearward visibility got cut. Once again looking at the Chinese Plane, the biggest difference is that that problem is Fixed on their design. Camera failure on an F 35, would mean no rearward visibility, coupled with bad acceleration performance and awful turning from those short stubby wings means a Super Flanker can feast all day for free.
This plane is doing what the pentagon has tried to do twice, make a wonder plane for all three services , the first time, spurred by the Navy, made the F 4 phantom, and that plane was very successful, and even compared to the F 35, at least it has plenty of power and a great angle of climb.
The second attempt at a wonder plane was the F 111, and as cost ballooned up only the Air Force and select allied countries bought that. Spurred by the Airforce.
This time, the Marines spurred development and got the jump with Congress first in the 90's. Lockheed already working on a design to replace the Harrier, and doing feasibility studies in the 80's was already years ahead of the competition. Congress drafted for a competition, and a pitiful completion was held against Boeing. After that sideshow was over the obvious choice was Lockheed, and Lockheed Knew this from the start being they had a 10 year lead.
Lockheed also makes generous sums to Congressional campaign funding, you don't even need to look at the Congressmen and Women who they've funded by name, look at any state with a Lockheed plant, and you will most likely have their money for that's states current sitting in office Representative or Senator.
Back to airplane. There are three factors that you don't take into account with this program, one it's been in testing and not functioning as advertised for over 10 years.
But here is a ugly truth about the competition:
- Competing countries arms industries have completed multiple competing designs and airframes compared to just two on part of the U.S. in that same amount of time.
- These designs are emerging with more and more sophisticated software and capabilities as time goes on it.
- Many are FUNCTIONING products ready to fly and fight NOW. As opposed to being stuck in endless testing.
- Some are already for sale to many of our adversaries.
Being as the F 35 can't loiter, can't run, and can't fight outside of lobbing a small payload of long range missiles. That would spell disaster for this aircraft in any toe to toe engagement.
Also as for stealth... Once a stealth fighter fires it's payload it often comprises it's position. So it the F 35 Fires it's weapons it can be fired at, then it goes from a stealth aircraft to a really bad performing aircraft.
Then the scales if the enemy survives seem alot more even. Considering the F 35 is facing a conventional air threat, not a stealth or air threat backed by ground support radar.
Plane works perfectly in Lockheed Martin advertising videos.
But seems like a Turkey Everywhere else.
Last edited:
Continued
As for once it fires it's payload of missiles, the fight will most likely be over at that point. We really don't have dogfights in this modern jet age. The 1st plane to get their missiles - rockets fired wins.
Remember the F-15 and other earlier US fighters hit their target fighters in Libya, Iraq without the foe ever even really knowing what hit them. You can't even call these dogfights the US spotted the planes on radar and fired missiles the deal was done. We have to go back to Vietnam for the last time a Mig or any other fighter was able to go toe to toe with a US fighter. I believe the F22 which is the USA's real champion and likely the F35 in time will have the same advantage over foreign fighters.
If the government is paying out the cash claimed it will eventually get this F35 up to spec. However it does sound like some engineering bungling has occurred. I've worked on military avionics. All sub assemblies and sub-systems should be screened, tested and inspected most thoroughly prior to installing them in the prototype plane. Of course all issues can't be tested independently but this approach should eliminate the majority of failures, perhaps their quality cycle is not up to snuff. However weren't the planes grounded due to an oil leak on a single plane "perhaps I'm wrong".
As for once it fires it's payload of missiles, the fight will most likely be over at that point. We really don't have dogfights in this modern jet age. The 1st plane to get their missiles - rockets fired wins.
Remember the F-15 and other earlier US fighters hit their target fighters in Libya, Iraq without the foe ever even really knowing what hit them. You can't even call these dogfights the US spotted the planes on radar and fired missiles the deal was done. We have to go back to Vietnam for the last time a Mig or any other fighter was able to go toe to toe with a US fighter. I believe the F22 which is the USA's real champion and likely the F35 in time will have the same advantage over foreign fighters.
If the government is paying out the cash claimed it will eventually get this F35 up to spec. However it does sound like some engineering bungling has occurred. I've worked on military avionics. All sub assemblies and sub-systems should be screened, tested and inspected most thoroughly prior to installing them in the prototype plane. Of course all issues can't be tested independently but this approach should eliminate the majority of failures, perhaps their quality cycle is not up to snuff. However weren't the planes grounded due to an oil leak on a single plane "perhaps I'm wrong".
Last edited:
Software problems, oil leaks from inside the aircraft, and the last case, explosion in the engine which prevent F 35 to participate in recent Farnborouugh Airshow in England are big problems which not be solved very soon.
If you want to find your answer that why this project hasn't been stopped if it has such big problems you should go in White house, Congress or Pentagon corridors not in Military or technically points. In 2012 Lockheed Marti helped to 425 of 535 congress members so they have a strong lobby there. About 127000 jobs in the US are connected directly or indirectly to this project and it is the main reason for congress to continue this project. On the other hand Lockheed Marti has received billions dollars from US governments in recent years and JSF is the most expensive military project in the US history so they will not allow to cancel this project.
Maybe one day this project be finished but at that time you should judge how much time and money did you spend and what you gain in return.
If you want to find your answer that why this project hasn't been stopped if it has such big problems you should go in White house, Congress or Pentagon corridors not in Military or technically points. In 2012 Lockheed Marti helped to 425 of 535 congress members so they have a strong lobby there. About 127000 jobs in the US are connected directly or indirectly to this project and it is the main reason for congress to continue this project. On the other hand Lockheed Marti has received billions dollars from US governments in recent years and JSF is the most expensive military project in the US history so they will not allow to cancel this project.
Maybe one day this project be finished but at that time you should judge how much time and money did you spend and what you gain in return.
Last edited:
Every plane had it's development problems and cost overruns. The F-16 designers struggled with canopy, engine and cockpit issues and was in service before it was completely tested. To date, there are 138 versions of the F-16, as well as 15 block changes, with each block a decisive improvement in capability.
The F-35's development isn't much different with the F-16 one. The only difference is that the problems with the F-16 are history.
Every post WWII US fighter plane was technologically superior to its adversaries and proved its capabilities in combat. Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars and Israeli-Arab wars. The US made planes proved to be vastly superior and the F-35 will be no exception.
The F-35's development isn't much different with the F-16 one. The only difference is that the problems with the F-16 are history.
Every post WWII US fighter plane was technologically superior to its adversaries and proved its capabilities in combat. Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars and Israeli-Arab wars. The US made planes proved to be vastly superior and the F-35 will be no exception.
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
Until this airplane proves it's promised capabilities I remain unconvinced. The investment to return ratio is totally askew.
The other aircraft you listed were remedied and designed without this disaster that is concurrency.
Concurrency is a BIG problem.
Concurrency and that darn lift fan are killing this program, the plane is built around technical issues, not designed to go on without them.
Also WE DON"T KNOW, what direction our adversaries may take, competing airframes are making leaps and bounds to match pace with U.S. Air Dominance.
Let's not forget, Rome's legions didn't hold off the barbarians forever, especially when they came riding in with thousands of horses and bows.
We don't know if breakthroughs in detection and ranging systems may lift the vale so to speak on the F 35.
Also the comparison between the F 16 and F 35 is moot. The F 16 can do things the expensive F 35 cant's. It can climb, it can turn, it can accelerate, and it can carry more ammo, not only shoot first, but have ammo left to shoot again. Let's not even mention the A 10's capabilities. I see that airframe being better replaced by unmanned drones than the F 35.
It can also loiter. Yes, shoot first in a BVR engagement then win the day.
In Vietnam the USAF said missiles will be the trump card to win all future air battles... And took away all the guns...
Then what happened?
In any air to air scenario where the F 35 fires all it's missiles, and the surviving enemy aircraft not destroyed in the first salvo close in the F 35 maybe a 21st century version of the F 105.
Can't turn like a Sukhoi or J 31, can't climb like a Sukhoi or J 31, can't carry as much ammo as a Super Flanker or Even PAK FA. BVR is great but a stealth Coated B 52 programed to fire AMRAAM's could do the same job.
The plane just doesn't have the real hard tangible attributes something with this much money thrown behind it should. It just doesn't.
Last edited:
We'll wait and see
Right, "were". The F-35 "were" lies in the future.
"This is what is currently happening with the F-35; political interference raising cost, raised costs reducing total acquisition quantity, reduced acquisition quantity causing a massive increase in acquisition cost per vehicle. Once the smoke clears this F-35 will likely serve as the primary combat aircraft for the US Military"
(not my words)It only becomes a problem when you can't pay it anymore. US budget is still big enough.
"Even with the openness of F-16 management and test flights conducted by both test pilots and operational pilots, the test program didn’t uncover all the jet’s problems. In the early 1980s, several pilots died when they flew into the ground because of electrical problems with the flight control system—precisely the kind of accident some people feared would happen in an aircraft so unstable that it relied on its electrical systems to fly."
Yes we do. They're spying like hell to get F-22 and F-35 secrets.
Ancient history. Look-up F-16 kill ratio , 92:13. (the F-15 105.5:0) A lot of them by Israeli pilots. And Israel is replacing their F-16's with the F-35. Israel cannot afford to buy a weapon that doesn't work and certainly not an aircraft.
No matter what detection system, the F-35 will be less visble than an F-16.
The F-35 will propably be the last manned fighter.
"Some metrics are available regarding the F-35's raw performance and by and large most everyone agrees that the F-35 is as maneuverable as an F-16 with a comparable stores load-out, and in many ways the F-35A actually exceeds the F-16's nimbleness under real world operational circumstances. Most sources, including the test pilot corps flying the F-35 to the extremes of its envelope today, say that the aircraft most closely matches the F/A-18 Hornet in performance, which is no slouch.
Can the F-16 outperform the F-35A flying totally clean? Most likely, but how many times has an F-16 gone into battle in this configuration? In the last 30 years, never, which makes the while conversation irrelevant and Mr. Sprey's comments highly inaccurate. Usually the Viper is laden with bombs, missiles, electronic warfare pods, and most importantly, external fuel tanks. Under such conditions the F-35 with same weapons load would skewer a Viper because the F-35 can carry its payload internally.
None of this really matters anyway as the F-35's helmet mounted sight, sensor fusion and especially its Distributed Aperture System, when paired with the AIM-9X block II, will make drawn out hard maneuvering dogfights largely a thing of the past."
Can the F-16 outperform the F-35A flying totally clean? Most likely, but how many times has an F-16 gone into battle in this configuration? In the last 30 years, never, which makes the while conversation irrelevant and Mr. Sprey's comments highly inaccurate. Usually the Viper is laden with bombs, missiles, electronic warfare pods, and most importantly, external fuel tanks. Under such conditions the F-35 with same weapons load would skewer a Viper because the F-35 can carry its payload internally.
None of this really matters anyway as the F-35's helmet mounted sight, sensor fusion and especially its Distributed Aperture System, when paired with the AIM-9X block II, will make drawn out hard maneuvering dogfights largely a thing of the past."
The F-16's radar is inferior to the F-35 one.
The problem was made worse because of the ROE. The Americans were not allowed to attack the Vietnamese BVR.
When an F-16 fires all his missiles...
The F-22, F-35's companion , will handle that. The remaining planes will be taken care off by the F-35 if needed but the F-35 will propably already have destroyed its targets and heading home.
I disagree, although I respect your pont of view. Only a future conflict will show who is right. But for now we all are only guessing.