4 ms·

> Why would you think the next program would be any better? Because if the powers that be were smart, they drastically simplify the requirements and drop the U

by GVIrish 12y ago

> Why would you think the next program would be any better? Because if the powers that be were smart, they drastically simplify the requirements and drop the USMC variant completely. Any time the military tries to design a super-advanced swiss-army knife it invariably fails. This is the worst example of that in history. > These are the normal teething problems every new advanced fighter goes through. The F-22 went through them. The F-16 and F-15 went through them, though it was so long ago nobody remembers. Nearly every project reaches a point where people say "This will never work. Let's cancel it." Sure but the problems with the F-35 are waaayyy beyond teething issues. The software is way behind schedule. The fuselage has very poor rear visibility, so a targeting helmet was supposed to be developed but that's way behind schedule and may never work. The plane was designed without proper onboard lightning strike protection so it currently can't fly in bad weather. The plane can't be loaded with fuel higher than 80 degrees in temperature so it can't currently operate in a hot environment until retrofits to cooling trucks. The jet wash from the USMC variant melts the decks of the amphibious carriers it is meant to operate from. It has a poor turning and acceleration performance compared to Gen 4 fighter aircraft. It has poor loiter time. It doesn't have the basic video uplink functionality for close air support that even the A-10 has. It is already so far over budget that the unit price may approach that of the F-22. Some of the partner nations that were supposed to buy it are backing out, thereby increasing the unit price. The main problem with the F-35 is that the military took a lot of short cuts in drafting the requirements for this program, and when the predictable problems and schedule slippage occurred, they doubled down by relaxing testing requirements. This is supposed to be the backbone of American air power for DECADES. It would be one thing if this system would eventually perform as billed but it looks unlikely that it will and it will cost twice as much to purchase and operate as originally projected. It doesn't make sense to cripple our air power for the next generation becaus of the sunk cost fallacy. > By the way, the "flexible plane idea" has been incredibly successful in the F-18. Yes, but the F-18 is a much, much simpler concept. Carrier-based strike aircraft. Then look at the F-35: stealthy land-based, carrier-based, and stovl aircraft that will perform strike, cas, and interceptor roles. Right off the top the stovl requirement makes it very difficult to design a stealthy aircraft that will also have good enough aerodynamic performance to win a an air-to-air engagement after ther merge. If the F-35 was only a carrier-based strike fighter that added stealthiness, maybe we'd have a winner. But it is literally trying to be all things to three different services (one with a VERY difficult implement STOVL requirement) then throwing a difficult to implement low-observable requirement of which no other nation in the world has successfully implemented even a first generation of.

tsotha 12y ago
The problems you've outlined really are pretty normal teething problems for a system like this. The best argument in favor of cancellation is cost. Personally I would never have produced a new strike aircraft. With the advent of cheap guided bombs what you really need is complete dominance of the air and big, big bomb trucks. I would have bought another thousand F-22s and spent money upgrading the heavy bomber fleet. Nobody asked me, though :)
Dragon029 12y ago
- The targeting helmet has been operational for a couple of years now and has gone through 3 revisions. The 3rd revision eliminated issues of jutter, etc and is now more or less ready for combat. - Onboard lightning strike protection was present, but it didn't have an inert-gas generator (it was removed earlier for weight) which fills the fuel tanks with an inert gas as they're drained. It's not necessary, but it was desired - ground-based lightning tests had it go through 800+ strikes without incident, so all-weather flying is set to be permitted in the next couple of months. - The jet can take hot fuel and has been able to do so for the past 8 years, with it's primary testing bases being in Texas and Arizona. The fine-print of it's limitations was that its radar, etc wouldn't be operate at full power <2 minutes after take-off if it had hot fuel and had been sitting with its engine idling for 30 minutes. - It's exhaust doesn't melt the deck, but it causes heat stresses in the long term. The Navy already has a new deck coating ready (called Thermion) which eliminates the issue and doesn't need to be replaced anywhere near as often. - The turning & acceleration performance is only poor when compared to air dominance fighters like the Eurofighter Typhoon or Su-35, or legacy fighters like the F-16 when they're stripped of external weapons, fuel tanks, pods, etc that are otherwise required for combat. - It's loiter time has never been disclosed yet, but on internal fuel only the F-35 outranges every other western fighter using internal fuel and is competitive in range against them when they're loaded with external fuel tanks. - The video uplink function is scheduled for Block 4 of the F-35's software; the reason for its delay being that ROVER was only recently overhauled to ROVER IV and because it's extremely unlikely the F-35's going to be performing CAS prior to 2020 while there are still (relatively-disposable) F-16s, A-10s, etc flying. - It's original 'budget' / targeted price was $50 million. While the jet's far more expensive than that, so is every other modern fighter. Even a modern Block 60 F-16V goes for more than $70 million flyaway, while more relevant fighters like the Typhoon, Rafale, etc are over $100 million. As of LRIP 8 / F135 Lot 8, an F-35A with engine is approximately $108 million, with the total cost decreasing approximately 3.5% each year through to 2018 when full-rate production begins and the price drops to ~$85 million, being cheaper than pretty much all of the competition. - The only nation that's backed out is Canada, and even then it's almost certain they'll end up going with the F-35 anyway based on what the RCAF has been asking for. >Yes, but the F-18 is a much, much simpler concept. Carrier-based strike aircraft. Then look at the F-35: stealthy land-based, carrier-based, and stovl aircraft that will perform strike, cas, and interceptor roles. Other than the STOVL and stealth, that's exactly what the F/A-18 is, and even then the E/F/G models have tried to utilise stealth to a degree in their forward hemispheres.

by GVIrish 12y ago

tsotha 12y ago

The problems you've outlined really are pretty normal teething problems for a system like this. The best argument in favor of cancellation is cost. Personally I would never have produced a new strike aircraft. With the advent of cheap guided bombs what you really need is complete dominance of the air and big, big bomb trucks. I would have bought another thousand F-22s and spent money upgrading the heavy bomber fleet. Nobody asked me, though :)

Dragon029 12y ago

- The targeting helmet has been operational for a couple of years now and has gone through 3 revisions. The 3rd revision eliminated issues of jutter, etc and is now more or less ready for combat. - Onboard lightning strike protection was present, but it didn't have an inert-gas generator (it was removed earlier for weight) which fills the fuel tanks with an inert gas as they're drained. It's not necessary, but it was desired - ground-based lightning tests had it go through 800+ strikes without incident, so all-weather flying is set to be permitted in the next couple of months. - The jet can take hot fuel and has been able to do so for the past 8 years, with it's primary testing bases being in Texas and Arizona. The fine-print of it's limitations was that its radar, etc wouldn't be operate at full power <2 minutes after take-off if it had hot fuel and had been sitting with its engine idling for 30 minutes. - It's exhaust doesn't melt the deck, but it causes heat stresses in the long term. The Navy already has a new deck coating ready (called Thermion) which eliminates the issue and doesn't need to be replaced anywhere near as often. - The turning & acceleration performance is only poor when compared to air dominance fighters like the Eurofighter Typhoon or Su-35, or legacy fighters like the F-16 when they're stripped of external weapons, fuel tanks, pods, etc that are otherwise required for combat. - It's loiter time has never been disclosed yet, but on internal fuel only the F-35 outranges every other western fighter using internal fuel and is competitive in range against them when they're loaded with external fuel tanks. - The video uplink function is scheduled for Block 4 of the F-35's software; the reason for its delay being that ROVER was only recently overhauled to ROVER IV and because it's extremely unlikely the F-35's going to be performing CAS prior to 2020 while there are still (relatively-disposable) F-16s, A-10s, etc flying. - It's original 'budget' / targeted price was $50 million. While the jet's far more expensive than that, so is every other modern fighter. Even a modern Block 60 F-16V goes for more than $70 million flyaway, while more relevant fighters like the Typhoon, Rafale, etc are over $100 million. As of LRIP 8 / F135 Lot 8, an F-35A with engine is approximately $108 million, with the total cost decreasing approximately 3.5% each year through to 2018 when full-rate production begins and the price drops to ~$85 million, being cheaper than pretty much all of the competition. - The only nation that's backed out is Canada, and even then it's almost certain they'll end up going with the F-35 anyway based on what the RCAF has been asking for. >Yes, but the F-18 is a much, much simpler concept. Carrier-based strike aircraft. Then look at the F-35: stealthy land-based, carrier-based, and stovl aircraft that will perform strike, cas, and interceptor roles. Other than the STOVL and stealth, that's exactly what the F/A-18 is, and even then the E/F/G models have tried to utilise stealth to a degree in their forward hemispheres.