MILAVIA Forum

Military Aviation => Military Aircraft => Topic started by: Valiant1 on September 27, 2006, 07:44:47 AM

Title: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: Valiant1 on September 27, 2006, 07:44:47 AM
This is the biggest (to my knowledge), most lucrative, multinational military contract in all history - the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.  From ads I've seen in military magazines,  it is second only to the F-22 Raptor.  It can attack ground targets with precision and shoot enemy fighters from BVR.  It can take off vertically from almost anywhere and do what the Harrier could never do - fly much faster than the speed of sound, carry internal as well as external payloads, and has stealth qualities.

But is the F-35 going to live up to all these expectations?  It's still in the testing phase and if I'm not mistaken, probably one of the longest testing phases in military aviation history.  It's not due to go into  service with the USAF until 2012 - I don't even know about the other countries.

So, what do you all think of the F-35?  Is this fighter going to live up to all the expectations or not? 
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: Webmaster on September 27, 2006, 09:13:16 AM
I know that it will be overbudget, overweight, too late and full of bugs that will have to be worked out even after entering service. But well, what do you expect from a military aircraft development project. So when I think about the expectations that the people have who decided to order it, no, it won't live up to theirs, they are still thinking about a good, cheaper deal than the others and in-service date of 2010.

Secondly the industry, I think most will do fine and get their orders in, but on a country level I think the returns on investment will be dissappointing when it fails to get export orders and/or the US armed forces scale down their orders (to get more Raptors for example).

For the air force, I do think it will live up to their expectations. Speaking for the non-US customers, I am not sure whether it will also be possible to incorporate their wishes, since the US will be very careful about technology transfer on important components to make adjustments such as the software of the weapon operating system.

In terms of the aircraft, its specification and capabilities, although it will fit the requirements of the armed forces, I still think it will be dissappointing. For example, you say supersonic SVTOL aircraft, right, but most armed forces will just get the baseline CTOL version. Fly faster, supercruise is nice, but you'll see that the top speed will dissappoint in comparison with older fighters. Stealth, very nice, but you don't really need it on missions like Iraq or Afghanistan. SEAD is still important, even though you have stealth capabilities. External payload, nice, but there goes your stealth... so in theory it can carry a lot, but in practise it will only carry the few weapons that fit in the internal bay. So that will dissappoint as well.

And of course as an aviation enthusiasts, it is not the best-looking aircraft, and I think it even got uglier in the process of developing the production standard.

So yes it will be the best you can buy, but it will be expensive and won't be that great a thing.

Who's next?
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: Valiant1 on September 27, 2006, 11:16:54 PM
I myself, being an American, am a little skeptical about this new aircraft.  For some reason, my heart and guts tell me this is one of the political ventures for our top military bigwigs to put some money in their pockets. 
I think they forget that we need the best for our pilots, as well as our allies, but for some reason, I still think someone is making a whole lot of money in this deal.

On the other hand,  we're not sure yet, how this aircraft will perform.  It hasn't been tested in combat, whether air-to-air or air-to-ground.  So only time will tell.

You're probably right, Webmaster, about the F-35 not being as fast as its predecessors.  But we also have to remember that fast fighters and interceptors like the F-15, Mig-25, Tornado F1's and whatever else, can only sustain their top speed for a short time, while aircrafts like the new Typhoon, F-22 and F-35 can sustain speeds faster than the speed of sound for a longer period - definitely an advantage when you want to get to the fight a lot quicker, thanks to supercruise.

You're right also, most countries might just opt for the standard F-35, and that's not bad at all because it'll meet their country's requirements.  But countries like the US, England and Spain will definitely go for the VSTOL, obviously, to replace their aging Harriers.  We all know the advantage of VSTOL because when the enemy starts bombing your airstrips, where are you going to take off from? 

So my reason for being skeptical about this whole project is not so much the capabilities of the F-35 - that will remain to be seen, but  a political one - one against my own government - because even here, most ordinary average Americans know that our military bigwigs and politicians are up to something no good.
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: shawn a on January 31, 2012, 09:30:12 PM
Graduating from high school, my mom gave me a Swiss Army Knife that was the biggest one they made. I loved it, and carried it everywhere. It was versatile, useful, and HEAVY. After a while I realized that the holes appearing in my pants pockets were caused by that knife. I got a smaller one with all of the blades I used often, and none of the ones I seldom used. It was cheaper, lighter, and my pants pockets started lasting as long as the pants themselves.
  The US Air Force, in it's infinite wisdom (read "folly") has decided to have the F-35 perform the CAS role in addition to all the other wonderful things that have been assigned to the platform. And save money by retiring quite a few A-10 squadrons.
  In my garage is my Bugatti Veyron, which can outrun a police helicopter, but I don't use it that way, I use it to haul manure from the local pig farm to my garden. I have an old dirty pickup truck next to the Veyron, but I can only afford gas for one of them, and I'd hate to drive to the pig farm without the potential capabilities of the Bugatti.
The F-35 is much like my first Swiss Army Knife, full of wonderful capabilities, versatile, useful, and HEAVY. It will wear a hole in the pockets of all American citizens. And when it does, the Air Force will realize that just like they have specialist people (medics, mechanics, pilots, sentries, etc.) they need specialist aircraft. The Swiss Army Knife approach to aircraft design is a daydream.
 Oh, if all the above confuses you, my answer to the topic's question is NO!
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: Webmaster on February 01, 2012, 05:02:00 PM
Retiring A-10 squadrons has little to do with F-35 imho. Look at unmanned systems for FY2012 budget... 48 MQ-9 Reapers will be added. That's your CAS for the future.

In other words, you sold your dirty pickup truck [A-10], use your Veyron once a month [F-35], and direct the farmer to truck the manure to your garden by calling him from your office [MQ-9 System]. Now you don't need the towtruck guy [CSAR] when your pickup breaks down, you don't need a subscription at a nearby carwash to clean your Veyron [Base suitable for F-35 deployment].

The other thing: the Swiss Army Knife would be great, if your mom would also keep buying you new pants. But that's not happening. You love mom, so you blame the knife, because you know you won't need all of its functions. The airforce does not love government, so they blame mom for not giving more pants, so they don't blame the knife, because they don't know they won't need all of its functions.
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: Webmaster on February 01, 2012, 05:29:11 PM
Ow, and mom does not allow you to buy a knife of another brand.
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: shawn a on February 01, 2012, 08:45:15 PM
Uh- So I guess YOUR answer is "yes".
I'm not sure if I think UAVs would be good in the CAS role, though, in a large scale conflict. Sensor slew rate and alignment with a target would probably be difficult problems to a UAV that is  jinking.
Too many manpads and AAA in that kind of scenario.
 For the F-35,"battle scars" would most likely have a much longer repair time due to stealth maintenance. And mom didn't spring for the titanium bathtub option on the Veyron.
I wish my mom had bought me more Lamborghinis (F-22s).
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: Webmaster on February 02, 2012, 12:29:24 AM
No, but I just don't see getting some more Rambo knives and getting your butter knife fixed is somehow a better option than the Swiss Army knife to complement your Rambo knife.

If they would get more F-22s, it will be one for every two F-35s given up, plus they'll want to turn it into a Swiss army knife sooner or later...

Also, giving up those A-10 squadrons will actually free up airframes to keep the type in service for longer. I guess that's necessary because of the F-35 delays, but let's face it, getting another replacement for the A-10 now or keeping it for even longer... wouldn't that just mean the same decision?


Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: Webmaster on February 05, 2012, 02:15:04 PM
To clarify, I'm in favor of multi-role aircraft, but I'm not a fan of the F-35.
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: shawn a on March 15, 2012, 09:13:57 PM
Well, I've decided to take the bed of the pickup and cut it off to make a trailer. Then I can tow it with the Veyron to the pig farmer's, and carry much more manure to my garden.
Of course, the handling on these mountain roads is seriously degraded, and the cool looks of the Veyron suffer a bit, as does mileage, but I won't have to pay for fuel for the pickup.
  Take a look at the size of those pylons! I'm sort of sure that stealth was a consideration in their design, but perhaps not, as this doesn't look like a "first day of the war" kit for the Rhino Beetle.
The gun pod can't be all that stealthy, and it sure seems as if it will add significant drag.
I differ on your opinion of UAV close air support, however, since the 'Hog's GUN is the preferred go to weapon as far as cost, accuracy and "reduced collateral damage" goes, and I can't envision a Reaper conducting a strafing run.
And, remember, as it turns out, the -35 is not capable of supercruise.
So we will protect our tankers with -22s (all 185 of them) while the -35s will go downtown. Why protect tankers with our most capable air to air machine?-- They're called "High Value Assets" for a reason (they will be topping off our short range F-35s). And "updated" 30 year-old plus -15s, and -16s will be conducting the air dominance role.
Uh, yeah, I'm a pessimist on this plane. (Jack of all trades, Master of none)
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: shawn a on March 20, 2012, 11:33:19 PM
Finally, some good news! ;)
In the April issue of Combat Aircraft, at the bottom right corner of page 23, there is a short article that says in part "Italy's defense procurement agency announced on 7 February that it is to purchase an initial three F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. Officials have quoted a unit cost of some $80 million for the first three jets, but claim that this will subsequently drop to around $70 million..."
Well, hell, let's boycott Lockheed Martin, and get ours from whoever the Italians are getting theirs! That's like a half-price sale!!
 Oh--'scuse me while I kiss the sky.
 ::)  ::)  ::)
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: shawn a on March 22, 2012, 03:07:19 AM
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!!
Air Forces Monthly April 2012 edition has an informative article on the -35's capabilities. Evidently we're incapable of building it!
Concurrent development and production seems to have turned out to be folly. According to the article, Lockheed is 10 years late and charging twice the original hoped for price. Somehow those Italians are getting theirs at close to the original hoped for price. (I shoulda bought stock). The oddest statement in the article said in effect, the testing of COMBAT SYSTEMS were 32% ahead of schedule for the -35C, 11% behind for the -35A, and 9% behind for the -35B. Sounds like 3 different aircraft to me. Oh, no, wait, they're all F-35s.  Is there ONE bolt or nut that is interchangeable between all 3 aircraft?
Nothing else is in the pipeline as far as combat fighter aircraft, so this design damn well better be all that it is supposed to be!
The article ends with a sideline in a black box on page 43 about...........money.
 Evidently the authors feel the -35 is incapable of being affordable.
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: F-111 C/C on March 22, 2012, 01:54:28 PM
When was the last time ANY new aircraft was on schedule and within budget?
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: shawn a on March 22, 2012, 09:11:13 PM
Ha Ha, good point. The P-51? The U-2?
The problem seems to be that someone is not learning from these recent past mistakes about budget and schedule. It just seems to get worse with each new plane, and since we have only one  new fighter in the pipeline, that's not good. That makes it impossible to cancel after spending billions, like we usually do.  :(
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: F-111 C/C on March 22, 2012, 10:10:45 PM
I agree about being too far invested to cancel. The export sales are supposed to offset expenditures but my fear is with so many capable export fighter plane competitors now, at WAAAAY better prices, we'll be losing sales to countries that can only afford - and are just as happy with - 2nd or 3rd best and aren't 'pressured' into the F-35 (this has already been happening BTW). Most all interested parties have reduced their objective number of airframes two and three times already (if not cancelled all together). 'It is what it is' as the kid's say. We'll see where the 'chips' fall soon enough.
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: shawn a on March 23, 2012, 12:30:26 AM
I agree with everything you said, except the "soon enough"  ;)
It's gonna take years for these dice to stop rolling.
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: F-111 C/C on March 23, 2012, 04:28:38 AM
 :D Yeah, I guess "soon" is a relative term. I just read a few days ago that Canada is now thinking of cancelling their F-35 order. :(
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: shawn a on March 23, 2012, 04:32:23 AM
Let's restart the F-32!!  :-\
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: shawn a on April 10, 2012, 08:30:32 AM
I have a great idea.
Let's practice another form of "concurrency", Let's start designing, developing and producing our NEXT fighter, while we're still designing, developing, and producing the "game changing" F-35!
Talk about a curve ball!
Change the game, alright. Lockheed seems to have gotten this contract based on past performance, not a close scrutiny of their design and production plans for the F-35.
We need more than one manufacturer of combat aircraft here.
Lots
Of
Concurrency
Kills
Hopefully
Expected
Early
Deployment= LOCKHEED (Marine Corps Lament)
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: shawn a on January 02, 2013, 09:01:14 PM
Well, it seems as though at least one Lockheed bigwig has a sense of humor.
The Vice President of Integration and Business Development of LM went to London. While there his message was, and I quote from the January edition of Air Forces Monthly- "Air power is the key to military capability; the air supremacy we currently enjoy is perishable - and the Lightning II is central to maintaining it for the next 50 years"
What a joker!
Fifty years? Does he expect this plane to be another B-52 in terms of longevity? The BUFF is a great bomb truck in UNCONTESTED airspace, but rather easy to spot visually and with radar and with IRST, so in contested airspace it's toast. And we haven't really used the BUFF in contested airspace since Vietnam, where I assume the last one to be lost to enemy action was taken down.  It didn't take long for the Serbs to figure out how to compromise the stealth of the -117.
Does the VP of I. and B.D. of LM really feel that his wonderchild will work 50 years from now? I don't. His F-22 reportedly has a problem with Typhoons in a gunfight.
When we have only one type of plane which with to fight, any potential enemy has his work cut out for him--find its' weakness, and exploit it. (like the Serbs did with the -117) ((Hell, like we did with the ME-262)), (((OH, the 262's other weakness--INSUFFICIENT NUMBERS!)))  Hmm, in 50 years, how many F-22s will be left? And how many F-35s will have been bought?
So, the -35B will carry a gun pod for strafing, 2 missile rails near the wingtips, and 4 pylons that can handle bombs in addition to its' internal load. Doesn't sound stealthy anymore, does it? But, do the Marines need stealth? If the Marines are on the ground, wouldn't the enemy suspect there might be aircraft supporting them?
AFMs' article goes on to play the sleight-of-hand-smoke-and-mirrors price game by stating "The price of each aircraft has dropped 48% and it is projected to fall another 10% per year until 2017 when the cost of a new F-35 will equate to a new F-16" HUH??
In the same paragraph, the article says "Currently, 4 F-35s roll off the mile-long production line every month and the aim is to ramp up to one a day". And goes on to say "Lockheed Martin envisages 25 years of production coupled with an in-service life of 30 years". OK, let's say the one a day figure comes in 2017 when the planes are cheapest, and we expect LM will give employees the weekends off and a few holidays (say 10 a year) that leaves 20 years of 1-A-Day production which means they will make 6,250 aircraft. HUH?
I guess one of the prerequisites for becoming a Lockheed bigwig is to be a great con artist first.
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: Webmaster on January 03, 2013, 04:40:22 PM
Yeah, I read that article mostly for updates and some tech info (or lack thereof, at least we know how many lines of software there are, although it doesn't tell you much, imagine how many more will be added in its life), but indeed if you review it it's far from the critical articles that went before it. That's the issue with the JSF press all along, it either focuses on the bad or on the good. If "bad JSF", an article rarely goes into pros that would justify the problems or how they are easily overcome and often does not look at the lifetime, too much focus on the development/acquisition cost. The "good JSF" articles ignore bad news for the most part and still don't go into why we need such a complicated aircraft... sometimes even fail to address what makes it next gen or complicated, other than stealth and better than F-16 factoids. Or is this a AFM issue perhaps as it depends so heavily on the author? Sometimes I can predict the contents by just looking at who wrote it. I haven't read much other sources on the JSF than official info, newspaper, and AFM articles.

Nah, it will wind down too of course, at least when the US stops buying. Export orders will just be small batches, spread apart even more than now with the F-16s, because we've seen countries sticking to 2nd/3rd generation for way longer than they're good for, replacing them this last/current decade with new jets. Add 20-30 years before they get on the stealth track. Also the Super Hornets filling gaps means F-35 deliveries can be spread out for Navy/Marines/Aus. It may even be produced over longer period than just 25 years (F-16 will be 40 years in production?), as I don't see another manned fighter on the horizon. But right, numbers rarely add up... but it's what we understand easily, so they're thrown into it often lacking context or precision. I mean price drop of 10%...uhm, that's quite meaningless without knowing the assumptions made. Say next LRIP contract is reduced or delayed, or some teething/production problem is found, then it may easily increase 10%, right? Not to mention inflation stuff.

Whenever I see a serious publication just present the 3400 up to 5000 (whatever it is now) figure without explaining it, I feel uncomfortable about it, has anyone (press I mean) produced a projection based on current fleets and politics for the global market instead of just using the number "they say"? It's still all based on the F-16/F-18 story, but how many F-16As went to Europe, 500-600? Those countries now look at meh...200 F-35s tops? Some Hornet countries are definitely not replacing them one-for-one either (or maybe not at all). Attrition rates should be lower meaning options aren't taken up, with so much training being done on simulators and more on the T-X (did you see that article, US Aerospace at it again with Chinese design, seriously?), basically you have to deduct the two-seaters from the F-teen numbers too and then reduced requirements, how's it ever going to reach F-16 like numbers without another Cold War. And in some other markets... will be long before they get access to it or want it. Ah well, I guess they count on selling 500 to India in the future when their 5th gen coop with Russia fails to deliver something good enough to outperform Paki jets by 10x and on-par with China's fleet. Then what, give in and transfer the tech and move the production to India? Silly, but that's what I think needs to happen to arrive at a F-16 like total.

So 50 years, I've got no issue with that number. Don't think of that number as the BUFF's 50 years, produced in quantity over a couple of years and then kept in service for much longer (and btw, it's not the same because the BUFF is not done yet). Today's F-35s won't be in service anymore in 50 years, but the last production blocks will be (at least somewhere in the world). Even when production doesn't run for 25 years, I can see some countries sticking to half a squadron of JSFs for 10-20 years past that 30 years lifetime as it will be the final fighter for some European countries as we grow ever more complacent with defense and security. Look at Germany now with their slow introduction of the Typhoon, Tornado slow upgrades, and F-4F soldiering on, yeah Germany is a special case, but this is what the rest of Europe may be heading for. Do you need F-35 in numbers if all you do is just NATO air policing and limit RoE in conflicts to everything except Engagement.And let's face it, there will be countries flying them for the bare minimum number of flight hours because of flying costs and better simulators. Joint/Multinational exercises will just be simulated instead. Deployment exercises will be done with just a couple of jets and "extrapolated" for the force. Stealth is still being envisaged being needed for day-1 advantages whatever they call those strategies and a2a combat... that's not how it's going to be... day-1 will be unmanned and it won't be until they fail at the objectives before a plane with a pilot is being risked, at which point the opponent has already given up at the air battle having lost force multipliers because someone twittered their location, etc. Those expensive stealth planes will be kept in-country to avoid 9/11 like scenarios, for which in the event they will still fail at because we'll have let QRA times slip even futher.

Sorry, I just have a different picture of the future than for which these are built. I can't think of a plausible scenario where they make (more) sense than what we currently have and what's coming. Like the F-22 today, it's advantages for the first decade will be unneeded, underdeveloped, and too costly. Then like the Typhoons/Rafales today, it will be doing much less than for which it was designed hardly justifying its costs, with other ageing platforms being just as effective (or more thanks to upgrades). Then there's maybe 5 years during which you could justify it but not called upon and not up to the task, and then it's obsolete and fleets are cut to fund other capabilities such as cyber-defense and multipliers for the unmanned aircraft whatever makes more sense then.

I guess I went on too much. I want to see it replace F-16s, and see US need (although less than current requirements) but I'm not a believer... just like before, mixed feelings. Its radar and EOTS should be on the F-teens by now imho, and because it isn't I don't want to see the F-35 fail, but on the other hand, not believing Red/Yellow Dawn scenarios... why buy F-35? A modern stealthy F-5 like thing makes more sense for most of the world when unmanned platforms take over strike/bombtruck/isr/ew tasks. Oh well, what do I know. I think F-35 will like the B-1B or Tornado GR4/F3 in the sense that it's too expensive and complicated because it's designed to do things which will be no longer important by the time it's in full service. It's most expensive features will be obsolete by the time it needs to step up. The roles which it will be used for may be better fulfilled by other platforms, if only funding wouldn't have cut those. Made to succeed for political reasons, it will serve well and have its minor successes, but be a big financial burden for the service(s) in the future.


Finally, eh, isn't that a prerequisite for all bigwigs. They can't present less than "best scenario" info, because then it will affect the share price. Even if he believes that they will struggle to reach the 1000 mark within 20 years and that then it will come down to 1 a month for the next 20 years, by which time they will convert their lean lines to a on-demand workshop with long-lead parts inventories worth more than the company and a F-35 is put together in between fixing F-22s and producing 787 parts for Boeing and metalwork for the Chinese aircraft builders. He couldn't say that in public, right? And the author can't do much about that...

At least the lack of info is slowly becoming less of an issue, we've got a much better picture of what it is, when it's coming and how expensive it will be than just a year or two ago. And oh my, this thing is going to cause headaches in other areas than described so far... forget about heat, weight, maintenance, noise, those are small issues compared to may come: I can't recall any story of software that's complete and bug-free from the start, it may be quite limited for many years of service because of issues with software instead of the hardware.
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: Webmaster on January 03, 2013, 05:04:15 PM
Sorry, oops, bit too long... but you can read it quickly, it's just my thoughts without much facts or depth.
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: SukhoiLover on January 21, 2013, 05:31:10 PM
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-lowers-f-35-performance-bar-381031/ (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-lowers-f-35-performance-bar-381031/)
And now there´s that...i guess it won´t be everything it was supposed to be.
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: Webmaster on January 22, 2013, 06:20:10 PM
I saw it, there's the software bad news I saw coming as well.

Idk, is there a relation between the mentioned issues and the performance bar changes? Isn't this just a matter of lowering the spec so that these points can be ticked off for testing and procurement/production of LRIP batches can continue while the described issues are resolved / software is completed before widening the testing envelope again?

If not, then you're right, was supposed to be better or equal to F-16, and at least the sustained G turn number certainly doesn't beat the F-16.

Oh well, it's been called 'bomb truck' already for other reasons, might as well lower the performance specs if that's what it's going to be. It's still very agile/fast for a bomb truck though, I'm not too worried for now. All the things bolted onto 3rd/4th gen fighters ain't exactly helping them to achieve their original performance points either.
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: shawn a on January 31, 2013, 07:33:31 PM
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.


Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: Webmaster on February 02, 2013, 02:26:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: shawn a on March 09, 2013, 07:03:45 AM
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".
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: Webmaster on March 09, 2013, 02:59:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: shawn a on March 10, 2013, 08:23:15 AM
And how about her sexy sister the -2000?
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: shawn a on March 12, 2013, 07:30:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: shawn a on July 01, 2015, 10:25:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Will the F-35 Lightning II be everything it's supposed to be???
Post by: shawn a on July 10, 2015, 08:12:03 PM
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.