F-35 looking more like white elephant

[Beefitarian]

Nice work Brew. I was wondering how the same interveiw would go with a guy who just flew any new plane?

Paid test pilot who can't even remember which plane he's in that week, "Uh, this one!" points.

[frosti]

So I asked two army drivers, who've actually driven both the Humvee and a Bugatti Veyron, for their opinion.

Their unequivocal opinion -- I'd drive the Veyron.
That is the word of those who drive these vehicles. And their opinion matters.

Keep on sucking ass, AM General.

Close, but nice try.

[wotai139]

wonderful

[straightpilot]

September 7, 2011 (by Eric L. Palmer) - F-16.net has learned from an unnamed source, that earlier this year a presentation was given by an industry air combat threat assessment expert to defense officials of a NATO country which showed that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) would not survive air combat against threats it is likely to see in its alleged service lifetime.

Part of the presentation showed a computer simulation which calculated that the F-35 would be consistently defeated by the Russian-made SU-35 fighter aircraft. The defeat calculated by the scenario also showed the loss of the F-35's supporting airborne-early warning and air-to-air refueling aircraft.

The technology in the SU-35 will also see its way into growth upgrades of other SU-fighter variants used by countries like Indonesia, India, Malaysia and Vietnam. Chinese variants of these aircraft should also see similar growth capability in the coming years.

The Russian-made T-50, PAK-FA low-observable fighter now in development is expected to be much more lethal than the SU-35 in air-to-air combat against the U.S. made F-35. The SU-35 and T-50 made appearances this year at the Russian aerospace industry air show known as MAKS2011. Both aircraft will include sensors and networking which can minimise the effects of the limited low-observable qualities of the F-35. They will also have higher performance and carry more air-to-air weapons than an F-35.

The F-35 defeat briefing runs counter to the claims by the Lockheed Martin corporation that the F-35 will be a go-it-alone aircraft in high threat situations (brief to Israel, 2007) or that it will be “8 times” more effective than “legacy” aircraft in air-to-air combat.

In 2009, then U.S. Secretary of Defense Mr. Gates was successful in halting additional production of the F-22 which is the only aircraft that can take on emerging threats. His reasoning was that the F-35—built in numbers—would be sufficient to fill any strategic gaps in air power deterrence for the U.S. and its allies.

There was never any robust strategic study performed by the U.S. Department of Defense to verify Gates theory.

Since Gates endorsement of the troubled F-35 program, it has continued with its history of cost blow-outs and delay and is unlikely to see a large number built.

If Gates is wrong, he will have helped put the the air power deterrent capability of the U.S. and its allies at significant risk in the coming years. According to the assumptions of the joint operational requirement of the F-35 signed off on in 2000, the F-35 was not supposed to take on high-end threats. The requirement assumed that there would be hundreds of combat-ready F-22s. With the F-22 program ending, the maximum number of combat-ready F-22s will be somewhere between 120 and 140.

Independent air combat analysts from Air Power Australia have also stated that the F-35 is not capable of facing high end threats; that what will be delivered (if it ever arrives) will be obsolete; and that the F-35 is not affordable or sustainable.

A recent briefing by Australian Defence officials, while showing support for the F-35 program, admitted that it will cost more to operate than the F-18 Hornet. A separate U.S. Navy study also agreed. This is counter to the claim by Lockheed Martin, that the F-35 will be cheaper to operate than existing aircraft it is planned to replace.

In 2012, Australian Defence will decide to put down money for its first order of F-35s or to go ahead with a “plan-B” that could include purchase of 24 more F-18 Super Hornets made by Boeing. The Super Hornet is also unable to take on high-end threats in the Pacific Rim region in the coming years.

[Expat]

And today's news:


http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=m ... 37e72ac1fc

Testing Finds Flaws In F-35 Wing Structures

Just weeks after the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter got back to flight testing, a new design problem has cropped up. An aluminum beam in the wing structure has been found to be "defective," an issue that could lower the aircraft's wing life from 8,000 hours, or about 25 operational years, to just 1,200 hours, which equates to about five years of flying....

[Beefitarian]

Screw yoo gais it's gud!! We cant make 5th generation fighters here.

[trampbike]

And today's news:


http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=m ... 37e72ac1fc

Testing Finds Flaws In F-35 Wing Structures

Just weeks after the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter got back to flight testing, a new design problem has cropped up. An aluminum beam in the wing structure has been found to be "defective," an issue that could lower the aircraft's wing life from 8,000 hours, or about 25 operational years, to just 1,200 hours, which equates to about five years of flying....

To find what's wrong is exactly the point of having test airplanes... The F35 is not different from any other airplane in development. Flaws have been and will be found, then fixed, then the aircraft will be purchased.

[Expat]

And today's news:


http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=m ... 37e72ac1fc

Testing Finds Flaws In F-35 Wing Structures

Just weeks after the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter got back to flight testing, a new design problem has cropped up. An aluminum beam in the wing structure has been found to be "defective," an issue that could lower the aircraft's wing life from 8,000 hours, or about 25 operational years, to just 1,200 hours, which equates to about five years of flying....

To find what's wrong is exactly the point of having test airplanes... The F35 is not different from any other airplane in development. Flaws have been and will be found, then fixed, then the aircraft will be purchased.

My point was that if such an important part is flawed, so late in project, means that the design is flawed. may be Canada should wait and buy it when the design is at least proven, and testing complete.

[frosti]

may be Canada should wait and buy it when the design is at least proven, and testing complete.

That's exactly what we are doing. By the time this jet enters service with Canada it will be way beyond the test stage. All of the major bugs will already be dealt with. Hell, even with our current CF-18's we had to make some changes because parts of the airframe was getting overstressed. Most were also sent for centre barrel replacements to extend the service life. Fighter jets aren't/won't be cheap, regardless of who you buy it from.

Screw yoo gais it's gud!! We cant make 5th generation fighters here.

Screw yoo gais it's sux!! lets by eurofighter because i beat ace combat game wit it.

[Beefitarian]

Where's the falling down emoticon? Eurofighter?!? What the mullet? No Canadian with an ounce of dignity would want to buy those.

[trampbike]

My point was that if such an important part is flawed, so late in project, means that the design is flawed. may be Canada should wait and buy it when the design is at least proven, and testing complete.

+1 to what frosti wrote, and,

1. Canada hasn't purchased the jets yet.
2. Canada will purchase the jets when it's in full production (which means the TESTING phase is over)
3. Canada will purchase the jets at the high production rate price. This means that the cost per airplane is going to be way lower than the initial (low) production rate price.

[AuxBatOn]

Expat,

I would value your opinion if it was credibly informed. I had my doubts about the JSF myself. But when I was educated on the project most of my aprehensions disappeared. Trust the government on this one.

[Beefitarian]

Trust the government on this one.

Can't do that. You have to drive them though so I'll trust your opinion.

I still would like to see something built in Canada eventually even though that makes me a loony. Until these things are bought and put into service it's all the usual internet arguments.

Are you home yet?

[Expat]

Expat,

I would value your opinion if it was credibly informed. I had my doubts about the JSF myself. But when I was educated on the project most of my aprehensions disappeared. Trust the government on this one.

I was in Ottawa, in procurement, when we bought the F-18s. I tell you, same thing...
Political issues override military ones, especially in the states. Boeing is trying hard its ways...
Cheers,
expat

[North Shore]

AuxBatOn,

I'm kinda wondering how 'they' are rationalizing away the need for a 2nd engine that seems to have been a factor in Canadian aircraft acquisition since (the Cf100?) whenever? Or is it just the case that we need the 5th gen fighter, and the F35 and its capabilities outweigh the lack of 2 engines?

(Perhaps the 2nd engine thing was a political decision in the past to throw a previous acquisition contest a certain way?)

[iflyforpie]

The -104 only had one engine, but the prehistoric J79 was rarely a factor in the attritions...

[Idle Thrust]

This relates to a sister service, one can only hope the F-35 decision is in better hands:

http://www.timescolonist.com/Last+worki ... story.html

http://www.timescolonist.com/Canadian+s ... story.html

[trampbike]

Or is it just the case that we need the 5th gen fighter, and the F35 and its capabilities outweigh the lack of 2 engines?

That, and lucky us, engine reliabilty has somehow improved over the years.

[Big Pistons Forever]

My point was that if such an important part is flawed, so late in project, means that the design is flawed. may be Canada should wait and buy it when the design is at least proven, and testing complete.

+1 to what frosti wrote, and,

1. Canada hasn't purchased the jets yet.
2. Canada will purchase the jets when it's in full production (which means the TESTING phase is over)
3. Canada will purchase the jets at the high production rate price. This means that the cost per airplane is going to be way lower than the initial (low) production rate price.

1) The government has signed a letter of intent to purchase, backing out could cause damages to be awarded so I think we have for all intents and purposes, purchased the F35

2) The definition of the "TESTING phase is over" is largely out of our hands and our ability to impose additional testing requirements is likely severely limited by the language of the letter of intent

3) Unlike every other major capital procurement program, there are no guaranteed industrial offsets. The company has an extremely powerful lever on the Canadian government because they can threaten to squeeze Canadian suppliers if the government doesn't agree to the (inevitable) price hikes.

Also don't forget that we are not just paying to buy the F 35 we also have to pay to operate them. Even the most optimistic forecast predict that the F 35 will cost 25 % more to own and operate then the CF 18.

Ultimately though the sad part of this whole sad story is once again we are discussing the "what to buy" instead of "why are we buying this capability".

This should not be surprising because Canada has not articulated a fully formed national defence policy since the end of the cold war. Before we spend 16 or 20 or 29 Billion dollars on the F35, depending on who you believe, maybe we should first demand Prime Minister Harper clearly answer two questions.

1) Why does Canada have a Military, and

2) What does Canada want it to do.

When those answers are clear, unambiguous and understood by Canadians, then we can finally have an informed discussion on what future tactical air effects are needed and from that what platform is best suited to deliver those effects.

[AuxBatOn]

BPF,

Those 2 questions are actually answered quite clearly in the CF Mission Statement / Defence Strategy. Go read it!

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/first- ... le-eng.asp

[Big Pistons Forever]

BPF,

Those 2 questions are actually answered quite clearly in the CF Mission Statement / Defence Strategy. Go read it!

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/first- ... le-eng.asp

I have as well as the DPG,CBPG, CFDS and most of the Defense plans.

A one page document full of nice sounding, but totally undefined concepts like "Maintain combat-capable units at the right level of readiness" does not a defence strategy make.......

[Expat]

At this stage, and considering the looming economic crisis happening all over the world, it would be best for Canada, as a country, to save that money. The real threat to our sovereignty is economical, not some barefoot talibs half a world away...

[sky's the limit]

Expat,

"Saving money" is not what people do these days, particularly those people running governments... Nice thought though, but fatally flawed in that you were making far too much sense...

stl

[AuxBatOn]

I was in Ottawa, in procurement, when we bought the F-18s. I tell you, same thing...
Political issues override military ones, especially in the states. Boeing is trying hard its ways...
Cheers,
expat

You were in procurement 30 years ago. That's 3 decades ago. Needs and technology change. Your opinion about the JSF is, still in my mind, not credibly informed.

BPF, I'd like to know where you take your information. The info I got is largely different.

Also, just by stating that Canada decided it needed to be ready to intervene on the World Scene makes it obvious we need a military. To do that effectively, you need to be ready to face current and future threat. Yes, the Super Hornet could face the current threat, but definitely not the future threat. At this stage, the JSF is the only aircraft capable of meeting this requirement. How the higher ups made up that decision is not for open forums because of the sensitive nature of the information. Regular Joe doesn't need to know every "why".

If people doubt the capabilities of the JSF, please let me reassure you that it is quite the fighter and attack aircraft. It's far superior to anything I have seen so far (did I tell you I had my doubts?).

Single Engine vs Two Engine. The eternal debate. The nice thing about having 2 engines is that you have redundancy with all your systems. With the JSF engine, you have redundancy with all your systems except your motor (2 of everything on the motor). With advances in technology, engines are more reliable than ever. Yes, it will break. Yes, I shut down an engine on a Hornet. But you can bet I would have use everything that engine would have given me had it been my only engine. Precautionary shut downs just don't exist on a single engine airplane...

Looking at the stats for Viper, Hornet and (Strike) Eagle, the crash rates are essentially the same, meaning that single or twin engine, you are not safer with one of the other.

Because the economy is not going so hot is not a reason not to keep yourself well defended. Would you cancel your home insurance as soon as it's becoming hard financially?

[straightpilot]

How the higher ups made up that decision is not for open forums because of the sensitive nature of the information

But why is the information "sensitive"? The Russians make better aircraft, and I'm sure they know it, so who does it need to be kept secret from?!