Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???

[shawn a]

So, back when the fly-off was conducted, just what parameters did the Air Force test? Did they test ANYTHING relative to actual flying qualities, or was looks the most important thing? How were the original  "optimistic" sustained turn rate specifications derived? Ouija board?
How would transonic acceleration be improved? More thrust? Less bumps and doors?
How is sustained turn performance increased? Bigger elevators? Greater elevator deflection?
To me, performance issues seem to be a function of the basic design and will be difficult to correct, maybe even impossible.
And how about that lithium-ion battery in the -35? It's said to be larger and have a higher voltage than the -787's. And it will discharge and recharge every time the plane flys.

[Webmaster]

From the top of my head, that fly-off was concept phase... who can deliver the best concept that has stealth and vtol plus carrier capability combined in a fighter airframe of this class...

Seems the tail needs work before any of that...

More thrust will help and can be achieved I'd say. But... if it's not because of the issues discovered, then it's the design which gained weight. And despite weight savings, it will continue to do so in its life.

The worry we've always had is now true... it won't be F-16 like, at least not for some time.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-significant-operational-impact-381683/


Hmm, I heard on a news program shortly talking about 787 that according to an engineer of Tesla motors, the problem is that Boeing's design of the system in the 787 is flawed. It's not the technology itself. Let's hope the company responsible for that part got it right. Don't know who that would be if not LM itself.

[shawn a]

I just read the latest opinion of the F-35 progress in Air Forces Monthly.
It seems as though the Quivering Chihuahua still has MAJOR developmental problems.
One revealing and disturbing fact is that the aerodynamic performance is not revolutionary, or even evolutionary -- It's devolutionary. A sustained turn performance of 5 Gs at best! A comment was made that stealth becomes less of an advantage when forced to fly against other stealthy aircraft, so that any edge in aerodynamic performance becomes more important.
Cost is still an unknown, especially when the engine is not even included in the cost estimates and its' cost is presented separately.
 Sigh....Lockheed 101 -- "How not to build an aircraft".

[Webmaster]

Yeah, it's based on same DOT&E report as the articles I was referencing.

With all the issues, budget, political, technical, performance, armament talk being so discouraging, I'm basically back to just looking at the thing... So now excuse me for skipping ahead in that AFM to the Mirage F1 article to enjoy a fighter that's looking like it is supposed to look in my mind: sleek and pointy.

[shawn a]

And how about her sexy sister the -2000?

[shawn a]

How about the GAO report that says it will cost 1.7 billion dollars to "fix" problems discovered during this "concurrency" fiasco?
I was never good at math, but that means if there are 1,700 aircraft produced during concurrency, then it will cost 1 million per plane to fix deficiencies. However, obviously, there will not be 1,700 production aircraft produced during the concurrent development phase. If, say 340 planes are made during this phase, each will require fixes totaling 5 million per aircraft. If there are 170 planes produced that will require fixes, then the additional cost to bring these planes up to standard will be 10 million dollars each!
What a deal!!
It's like being caught in quicksand and struggling ever more frantically to escape, while only sinking deeper.

[shawn a]

Well, it seems that the Quivering Chihuahuas' bark IS worse than its' bite.
According to an article in Defense Industry Daily, a "clean" chihuahua (-A model) with no internal weapons could not outfly a two seat F-16D that was carrying two external fuel tanks!
An interesting statement made by some Lockheed bigwig quite a while ago in AWAST was "Speed is the new stealth". I sent a glib reply via e-mail that "Directed Energy is the new AAA - try to outrun that"
So- thanks, Lockheed for selling us Americans "The old stealth" at a seriously inflated price, but, hey, we're America, we are made of money--just look at how much cash we send to china on a daily basis.

[shawn a]

Todays news is that Australia will not procure -35B models because the cost to upgrade the ships that would carry them is projected to be too great.