F-35 and its future. Was the project an overall failure?

[probad]

i dont know whats up with people anymore they were talking up such a fuss about a little bit of snow up here as if people had never seen snow even though it literally happens every year

Edited March 3, 2021 by probad

[Dudikoff]

On 3/1/2021 at 1:54 AM, TLTeo said:

Yeah. Considering that a lot of the trouble with the program came from the -B, I think that if they built one plane to replace the Viper and Hornet, and another to replace the Harrier and A-10, they would have saved a lot of money and ended up with better performing jets.

 

IMHO, it's not the development troubles with the B so much, but the overall design constraints of the B that are the main problem with the F-35 in general. Namely, the somewhat stubby (and thus I presume more draggy) body which was necessary to fit that vertical lift fan, plus the limitation on overall fuselage dimensions which had to fit the elevators of those amphibious assault ships that the B is destined for.

 

The thrust needed to push around that seemingly draggy body and the increased weight due to unrealistic original designs seems to be pushing the single engine beyond its comfortable limits, compounded with a dumbfounding decision to cancel the alternate engine so late in the process to save a few bucks in the short term, especially given how well having two competing engines worked out with the F-16 program. At the same time, those factors are also limiting the range which is pretty bad, especially for the carrier variant where some sort of refueling drone is urgently needed.

 

The rest of the issues with the program are more like consequences of the concurrency approach to production (which has been proven a colossal failure in multiple projects, e.g. the F-22, F-35, LCS, Ford class) plus development issues with the new tech that was crammed there (like e.g. the HMD system).

 

But, those design characteristics stemming from the B unfortunately mean that even when all or most of the issues get sorted out eventually, the plane will still be somewhat operationally limited in terms of kinematics, range and maneuverability which is disappointing given how much money was spent on it.

 

And that's even before adding how much it will cost to maintain that thing, so no wonder there are ideas to further cut the procurement numbers (except for the F-35B) and develop a new plane from scratch. Since the NGAD and B-21 seem to have been progressing reasonably fast, it might be a good idea in the long run if the services could somehow afford even more waiting time for new airframes.

 

Even if I'm completely wrong in my amateur impressions, surely a better performing airframe with a longer range and with less issues that would have been in service in large numbers already should have resulted from the F-35 program given all the TIME and HUGE sums of money spent on it.

 

In that regard the program itself could (should?) be considered a failure, regardless if the F-35 eventually reaches successful service in large numbers.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Dudikoff

[Wizard_03]

9 hours ago, Dudikoff said:

 

IMHO, it's not the development troubles with the B so much, but the overall design constraints of the B that are the main problem with the F-35 in general. Namely, the somewhat stubby (and thus I presume more draggy) body which was necessary to fit that vertical lift fan, plus the limitation on overall fuselage dimensions which had to fit the elevators of those amphibious assault ships that the B is destined for.

 

The thrust needed to push around that seemingly draggy body and the increased weight due to unrealistic original designs seems to be pushing the single engine beyond its comfortable limits, compounded with a dumbfounding decision to cancel the alternate engine so late in the process to save a few bucks in the short term, especially given how well having two competing engines worked out with the F-16 program. At the same time, those factors are also limiting the range which is pretty bad, especially for the carrier variant where some sort of refueling drone is urgently needed.

 

The rest of the issues with the program are more like consequences of the concurrency approach to production (which has been proven a colossal failure in multiple projects, e.g. the F-22, F-35, LCS, Ford class) plus development issues with the new tech that was crammed there (like e.g. the HMD system).

 

But, those design characteristics stemming from the B unfortunately mean that even when all or most of the issues get sorted out eventually, the plane will still be somewhat operationally limited in terms of kinematics, range and maneuverability which is disappointing given how much money was spent on it.

 

And that's even before adding how much it will cost to maintain that thing, so no wonder there are ideas to further cut the procurement numbers (except for the F-35B) and develop a new plane from scratch. Since the NGAD and B-21 seem to have been progressing reasonably fast, it might be a good idea in the long run if the services could somehow afford even more waiting time for new airframes.

 

Even if I'm completely wrong in my amateur impressions, surely a better performing airframe with a longer range and with less issues that would have been in service in large numbers already should have resulted from the F-35 program given all the TIME and HUGE sums of money spent on it.

 

In that regard the program itself could (should?) be considered a failure, regardless if the F-35 eventually reaches successful service in large numbers.

 

The engine is very powerful. F-35As kinematics are better then F-16s in realistic situations. The engines true power has not been publicized, however pilot testimony and recorded maneuvers demonstrate that it's a lot more powerful then what people initially thought. 

 

Evidentially it's mind blowing. 

 

And the range on internal fuel is considerably better then all three of the legacy birds it's replacing? 

Edited March 3, 2021 by Wizard_03

[SUBS17]

On 3/1/2021 at 5:37 AM, Mars Exulte said:

 

  Yep, nevertheless, there's plenty of competition out there, and plenty of other aircraft getting bought up. While politics is often a big factor in this, to say it's the only reason the F-35 is being bought up is to blindly disregard every source that isn't a sensationlist hitpiece. There is plenty it offers that does indeed work very well. It is its own plane, with its own design goals, which it has fulfilled. If ''works as intended'' is your idea of failure, then you must be a lot of fun.

 

Whats up with the name change?

22 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

I don't agree that the USAF is admitting the F-35 is a failure by wanting to explore more cost effective solutions in 4++ 

 

I think force projections for potential adversaries for today were exaggerated when the JSF was in it's conceptual phase and the reality is F-35s high techology is not quite needed yet, and so it's not necessary to have the entire force 5th generation YET. So therefore US government does not need to dump money on it like it's going out of style. In other words the F-35 is so successful that they can relax and look at saving even more money.

 

If potential adversaries had indeed modernized their forces as fast as projected in the late 90s early 2000s this wouldn't be an issue because F-35 and 5th generation would be a requirement for modern air warfare. But the fact is it isn't yet and might not be until 2040. Many of these adversaries are just now looking at F-22 counters. Let alone 5th gen multirole. So is the F-35 a failure? Far from it, it's overqualified for it's job. 

 

The F35 is not a failure, it has a lot of upgrades coming.

[Dudikoff]

1 hour ago, Wizard_03 said:

The engine is very powerful. F-35As kinematics are better then F-16s in realistic situations. The engines true power has not been publicized, however pilot testimony and recorded maneuvers demonstrate that it's a lot more powerful then what people initial thought. 

 

Evidentially it's mind blowing. 

 

And the range on internal fuel is considerably better then all three of the legacy birds it's replacing? 

 

Yes, the engine needs to have and has a lot of power, but that doesn't come for free:

 

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/02/12/an-engine-shortage-is-the-newest-problem-to-hit-the-f-35-enterprise/

 

Regarding the range, sure, it beats the legacy fighters they're replacing (with internal weapons load at least), but I'm not sure if that should be enough given the different environments the aircraft were designed in.

 

As a light fighter, the F-16 was not required to have a long range on internal fuel so is rarely seen without those big draggy drop tanks, while the Hornets had a miserable range compared to the A-7s they replaced (on which the Super Hornets improved only somewhat). I'm not sure why such reduction was finally accepted in the end, but at least the carriers had dedicated tanker aircraft at the time.

 

Given the potential conflicts in the current setting (proliferation of various ballistic and cruise missiles, long range SAMs, etc.), a much longer combat range is becoming a necessity these days.

 

While Marines and the many smaller operators might be getting a good deal out of this program, I can't help feeling that the USAF and USN needs would have been much better served by a larger design with a bigger internal load and optimized for longer range and supercruise, even if it had to be twin engined and more expensive from the start (which F-35 turned out to be in the end anyway by trying to satisfy different service requirements with a single airframe).

Edited March 3, 2021 by Dudikoff

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

I'm not sure the engine issues is as big a deal as some make it out to be,

Its an issue which they seem to already have a fix for its a matter of implementing it.

 

Some have said this might have something to do with a flaw in the two level depot system compared to a three level where this could be sent to an intermediate depot and fixed much quicker than what I assume is heavy maintenance processing new engines and the ones with faulty blades being sent back?

Regardless of that, the Eagle in 1981 five years after entering service had a readiness rate of 66.7%

The JSF five years after entering service has a readiness rate of 70%.

 

This seems inline with the usual trend of these programmes I don't see why complain about this.

Edited March 3, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[tflash]

I think the most positive thing that came out of the F-35 development is that they now know how they would do everything differently! 

• No more mixing incompatible requirements such as USAF F-16 replacement and Marines V/STOL requirement, once you realize that all doesn't fit in one you understand that one doesn't fit all! 
• Ditch the concurrent development model that yielded one of the most protracted development cycles in fighter history
• Rapid Digital prototyping - man 1995 is soooo long ago, another century really ! 
• Forget the ALIS system outright: a good old mechanic is what you need!
• Only design a pilot into an aircraft when they are absolutely needed and have added value over drones and networks

 

 

[SUBS17]

On 3/4/2021 at 6:05 AM, Dudikoff said:

 

Yes, the engine needs to have and has a lot of power, but that doesn't come for free:

 

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/02/12/an-engine-shortage-is-the-newest-problem-to-hit-the-f-35-enterprise/

 

Regarding the range, sure, it beats the legacy fighters they're replacing (with internal weapons load at least), but I'm not sure if that should be enough given the different environments the aircraft were designed in.

 

As a light fighter, the F-16 was not required to have a long range on internal fuel so is rarely seen without those big draggy drop tanks, while the Hornets had a miserable range compared to the A-7s they replaced (on which the Super Hornets improved only somewhat). I'm not sure why such reduction was finally accepted in the end, but at least the carriers had dedicated tanker aircraft at the time.

 

Given the potential conflicts in the current setting (proliferation of various ballistic and cruise missiles, long range SAMs, etc.), a much longer combat range is becoming a necessity these days.

 

While Marines and the many smaller operators might be getting a good deal out of this program, I can't help feeling that the USAF and USN needs would have been much better served by a larger design with a bigger internal load and optimized for longer range and supercruise, even if it had to be twin engined and more expensive from the start (which F-35 turned out to be in the end anyway by trying to satisfy different service requirements with a single airframe).

 

 

The engine is fixed, the F35 just needed a tweak somewhere as can clearly be seen in the videos. F35 D.E.C.S PATENT.

 

[TotenDead]

03.03.2021 в 21:11, TaxDollarsAtWork сказал:

The JSF five years after entering service has a readiness rate of 70%.

 

 

70% are capable of taking off and doing some of the desired capabilities. When it comes to fully operational F-35s, their numbers are way worse

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

1 hour ago, TotenDead said:

70% are capable of taking off and doing some of the desired capabilities. When it comes to fully operational F-35s, their numbers are way worse

An interesting claim, what information are you basing that off of?

Edited March 12, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[TotenDead]

5 минут назад, TaxDollarsAtWork сказал:

An interesting claim, what information are you basing that off of?

 

https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/6381499

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/almost-two-thirds-of-america-s-f-35-fleet-are-not-mission-capable-f135-engine-causing-issues

That was a brief googling. Sorry for the first link in russian, it would just take much more time to find the original article in english

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

Your first Russian source looks a lot like this one https://www.standard.net/news/military/air-force-working-through-f-35-readiness-rate-issues/article_e7c71fdb-1262-5a5e-9b6f-18f628b9e206.html

Which talked a lot in relation to training squadrons which have more LRIP JSFs and as a result more lemons.

 

Something else I think that's worth mentioning. The average American politician has brought up program bashing to be more than just a national pastime but now is an elevated and quite sophisticated art form.

 

As far as I'm concerned they're all snake oil salesmen

Even more so if I didn't vote for them

Edited March 12, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[Lurker]

It's literally too big to fail. I'm talking about the program here, not the jet itself. The jet is a wonderful piece of engineering, but it's expensive to maintain, even more expensive to fly and still hasn't received all it's proposed systems even years after becoming operational. The program is definitely a failure from a logistical and financial standpoint, but at this point pulling out of the program would be even more detrimental. The development of this jet is literally a how-not-to guide to aircraft development, but I'm guessing that lessons have been learnt and next time things will be done a little differently. 

Edited March 12, 2021 by Lurker

[SUBS17]

4 hours ago, Lurker said:

It's literally too big to fail. I'm talking about the program here, not the jet itself. The jet is a wonderful piece of engineering, but it's expensive to maintain, even more expensive to fly and still hasn't received all it's proposed systems even years after becoming operational. The program is definitely a failure from a logistical and financial standpoint, but at this point pulling out of the program would be even more detrimental. The development of this jet is literally a how-not-to guide to aircraft development, but I'm guessing that lessons have been learnt and next time things will be done a little differently. 

 

It was actually sabotaged and the prices were inflated by organized crime who put all of the money into the New Zealand Governments Coffers. And that is why it is so dammed expensive. The sabotage included tampering with the engines and the speed brake. Once those were addressed the aircraft kicks ass. 

[Mars Exulte]

*has seizure*

[probad]

3 hours ago, SUBS17 said:

 the speed brake

 

Edited March 12, 2021 by probad

[SUBS17]

3 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

*has seizure*

You know him, he is one of your colleagues.(Yossarian?)

 

Back to the F35 check this out:

 

F35's high turn rate, 90deg/sec, controllable, dominates Su35 and T50 - YouTube

 

I wonder if the guy flying these jets needs a chuck bag?

 

 

 

[Weta43]

12 hours ago, SUBS17 said:

It was actually sabotaged and the prices were inflated by organized crime who put all of the money into the New Zealand Governments Coffers. And that is why it is so dammed expensive. The sabotage included tampering with the engines and the speed brake. Once those were addressed the aircraft kicks ass. 

 

Wow - I've been living here for years, and I never knew that Wellington is the organised crime capital of the world, and that when I've walked past the SIS headquarters - while they appeared to be the inconsequential offices holding the junior party of the 5 eyes club - I was actually passing the headquarters of the most sophisticated covert ops body ever to exist, capable of hiding their actions from the combined security services of the USA, Britain, Canada and Australia (though Australia - maybe... Just as well I'm posting this from NZ - I think you can go to jail now in Australia for suggesting that Australia's secret service ever make mistakes)

 

Makes sense though - ever since we cancelled the planned purchase of F-16s and ended up with an air force without fast jets, I'm sure the military have been plotting and conniving in their basements trying to find a way to scrape up enough money to buy anything that can top M1.

 

Strange though - as a 5 eyes partner we'd probably have had access to the F-35 if we'd asked.

It might have made more sense to turn that criminal master-mindry towards getting a discount and making enough money in other ways to be able to afford to buy them.

[TotenDead]

7 часов назад, SUBS17 сказал:

You know him, he is one of your colleagues.(Yossarian?)

 

Back to the F35 check this out:

 

F35's high turn rate, 90deg/sec, controllable, dominates Su35 and T50 - YouTube

 

 

So, F-35 turned faster than Su-35. Okay. 

Well, except that Su-35 wasn't turning, but was in a flat spin and F-35 pilot just stalled the aircraft to turn and was able only to dive straight to the ground after that.

[Hummingbird]

12 hours ago, SUBS17 said:

You know him, he is one of your colleagues.(Yossarian?)

 

Back to the F35 check this out:

 

F35's high turn rate, 90deg/sec, controllable, dominates Su35 and T50 - YouTube

 

I wonder if the guy flying these jets needs a chuck bag?

 

 

 

 

I don't think you actually understand what's happening in that maneuver...

[G.J.S]

20 hours ago, SUBS17 said:

 and the speed brake. . 

 

Okay Daniel, draw me a picture of where the 'speed brake' is?. 

[SUBS17]

 

8 hours ago, TotenDead said:

 

So, F-35 turned faster than Su-35. Okay. 

Well, except that Su-35 wasn't turning, but was in a flat spin and F-35 pilot just stalled the aircraft to turn and was able only to dive straight to the ground after that.

 

Both aircraft are doing a pirouette.

[BIGNEWY]

Stay away from politics or this thread will be closed.

 

thanks

[SUBS17]

 

 

Mig-35 lost to 7g limited F-35: 360 turn maneuver - YouTube

 

Here is an interesting comparison, so it is a good aircraft the F35. Just remember that it is just a video, that Mig-35 might be capable of more.

[SUBS17]

F 16 vs F 35 Turn Comparison - YouTube

 

Very close with the F-16, with this stuff there are a lot of factors though.