F-35 programme issues/software problems etc.

[Eja Cool8]

Getting to that sticky; "oooh, this is a feckin complicated aircraft" stage it seems

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...crisis-376590/

[Eja Cool8]

Another report on the same thang;

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...fa-speech.html

[Eja Cool8]

US navy ponders integration of the F-35C.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...issues-377171/

I didn't know the current Nimitz class doesn't actually carry enough aviation fuel to keep a Lightning II airwing running, but there you go

[Eja Cool8]

More teething troubles, fuel system vulnerabilities this time; ie; it might blow up under certain conditions..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...htning-II.html

Psst, Mr. Hammond-IT'S BEHIND YOU!

[Nomad]

they spotted the lightning issue yet a plane controlled by siri was passed?

[T3CH^]

Next software upgrade includes Apple Maps.

[Eja Cool8]

Heh, this just gets better, now, it seems, the exhaust actuator, which on other birds, uses hydraulic fluid, uses fuel instead on the F-35B, to save weight.

Doesn't work right, USMC F-35Bs now grounded...

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...-incident.html

[Eja Cool8]

..wait, there's more

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ce-bar-381031/

[Eja Cool8]

"Improper crimping of a fueldraulic hose", it seems, was the cause of the failure of that end of things.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...flight-382287/

[Eja Cool8]

The USMC, despite having an 'operational squadron' remain less than wholly enthusiastic, it seems. As their version is the same as the one the RN & RAF will be getting, this is a bit of a concern...

'Liberman’s reticence was understandable. For while the Marines hailed his arrival as a sign that their initial F-35 squadron is now operational, there’s one sticking point. “It’s an operational squadron,” a Marine spokesman said. “The aircraft is not operational.” '

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...tion-flak.html

[T3CH^]

Originally Posted by Eja Cool8

Is it just me or is the guy in MarPat thinking 'Honour guard? They'd need a fucking tow truck to get it out of here.'

[jimbobaggies]

F-35 fighter jet fleet grounded by Pentagon

[Eja Cool8]

Not unusual for a new engine, and better they find these things out now than when the plane enters service. Here's hoping nothing really drastic happens to affect the programme, as the RN are going to be screwed for something to fly off HMS Queen Elizabeth (short of keeping her at Rosyth until such time as cats & traps can be fitted) if the aircraft isn't fully sorted.

http://www.defencetalk.com/f-35-flig...entagon-46961/

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...%2C-pratt.html

[Eja Cool8]

Pratt & Whitney reckon the fan blade issue is an isolated incident, for their sakes, it better be..

"No additional cracks were found during inspections of engines on the remaining 50 planes in the Pentagon's fleet, or any spare engines.."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92003H20130301

[Eja Cool8]

F-35 receives some heavy criticism from pilots;

"Including stunning pilot comments about the aircraft's survivability (such as "Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned [down] every time"), a new, unclassified DOD document on the F-35 is now available.

It describes the performance of the F-35A and its support systems in initial training at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. Not previously in the public domain, the unclassified DOT&E materials are available at the POGO.org."

Worth d/loading that .pdf to get the full report, link in report..

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...rformance.html

Although the powers that be reckon it's not news;

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...ue-report.html

[Eja Cool8]

In a further indication of just how many eggs are being shoved in the F-35 basket, the USAF at Edwards & Nellis AFBs, get their hands on production F-35As to work out how to use them as A-10 and F-16 replacements..

"With the F-35A slated to replace the A-10 and F-16, pilots selected for F-35 operational test and evaluation were hand-picked from among the best in the Air Force and bring a wide variety of expertise to the program.

"Basically, this jet is going to encompass all of our air-to-ground roles and including some of our air-to-air roles as well. What they wanted was expertise from all those different platforms that will eventually be replaced by the F-35," said Maj. Matthew L. Bell, the 31st TES Operations Flight commander."

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...wards-afb.html

[EvilGrin]

How on earth are they going to replace the A-10?

[T3CH^]

Originally Posted by EvilGrin

How on earth are they going to replace the A-10?

TBH they can't, it is a purpose built tank killer. If they rely on the LIMITED stores the F35 can carry (it will NOT be fitted with external pylons for more munitions, as that will compromise maneuvering and stealth ability, a point that has been raised repeatedly by the pilots of other types of jet after it 'proved' it's superiority over in a series of tests) it will have to work fucking hard to cover the amount of targets should anyone with serious numbers of armour (NK, China, Russia, ETC) get arsey.

ONE A-10 could kill 15-20 tanks in a single mission, probably more.

F35, maybe 10, and if it's setup purely to kill tanks, it will be left with no anti infantry/soft skin vehicle ability at all other than a limited strafing run.

[mr_o]

Not only that but it's the loiter time. The A10 gets to the scene then can sit for ages armed to the teeth for pretty much anything. No fast jet out there, even the F15E, comes close.

[EvilGrin]

I don't doubt they could take the A10 design and it's basic principles and build a much better warplane than the current A10 design. But to replace it with a F-35 seems to be a backwards step. The seems especially silly when a lot of the engagements are air to ground.

[Eja Cool8]

The Lightning II perhaps won't carry external stores on 'day one' of any major conflict (ie, against any force that has a modern air defence network), but it'll have to once the major enemy AA & 3C assets are dealt with.

EG;



The F-35A has its internal GAU-22/A cannon, but if a gun's required for the B or C, then it'll have to be external (with the upside that more ammo can thus be carried). The most likely fit, AFAIK, for this cannon would be the Terma multimission pod, which can also carry extra sensors, etc.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...on-pod-374017/

[T3CH^]

And what effect would that have on it's performance envelope?

It'd be interesting to see what that amount of external weaponry does to it's 'superiority' over other aircraft.

[Eja Cool8]

Originally Posted by EvilGrin

I don't doubt they could take the A10 design and it's basic principles and build a much better warplane than the current A10 design. But to replace it with a F-35 seems to be a backwards step. The seems especially silly when a lot of the engagements are air to ground.

Bear in mind that the 'hog's an old plane for a strike aircraft, having first flown in the early 70s, and intended to fly against advancing Soviet armour formations in a high-threat environment. If any military had infinite resources, would they want a 21st-century straight replacement? Very likely, but you could argue that most, if not all of what the A-10 can do can be done by other platforms, including loitering anti-armour missiles/drones, attack helis and current/future fast jets.

[Ashen]

Must have fart gun

[Eja Cool8]

Originally Posted by T3CH^

And what effect would that have on it's performance envelope?

It'd be interesting to see what that amount of external weaponry does to it's 'superiority' over other aircraft.

Probably knacker it to the same extent as the early Harriers, tbh, (disregarding 'stealth' for a minute, which external stores'll obviously fuck up). We won't really know until the various services get their respective full production models and really start chucking them around a bit...

[Eja Cool8]

First launch of an AMRAAM goes to plan, which is nice...

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...e-in-test.html

[Nomad]

looking at that picture, i think launch is a strong word

[mr_o]

The fundamental problem still exists that fast jets need to move fast. Faster = safer but faster also means less time on target, less time to spot and less time to correct. Not to mention the fuel usage.

Also a gun pod will never be as stable as a fixed cannon. They tried this with a 4 barrel version of the GAU8 on f16s and it wobbled about.

A UAV or helicopter would most likely be a better substitute with a fast jet or something like a B1 being a quickly movable bomb truck.

[T3CH^]

Originally Posted by mr_o

A UAV or helicopter would most likely be a better substitute with a fast jet or something like a B1 being a quickly movable bomb truck.

Firescout or the XH-6 Little bird would fill that role nicely. Or a UCAV swarm.

[mr_o]

Especially if the Firescout was fitted with these