This forum is in read-only mode for archive purposes, please use our new forum at https://community.justflight.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Just Chat > Real World Aviation
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - JSF Problems
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

JSF Problems

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
tom burnside View Drop Down
P1
P1
Avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2008
Location: portsmouth,UK
Points: 868
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom burnside Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: JSF Problems
    Posted: 22 Mar 2013 at 11:14pm
Just a quick question about the F-35 Lightning II. As we all know its plagued with problems and rising costs and ive read that Canada and Australia are thinking of cancelling there orders. But is it one particular variant or is it with all of them cause ive read the A has had problems but nothing about the B or C.
Dont Let Her Die She Wants To Fly
Back to Top
Hot_Charlie View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 1839
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hot_Charlie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2013 at 1:31pm
Like any American procurement programme there are issues.

The root cause is that are now two huge US defence contractors, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. There are two political parties. It's easy to see why they get very political about absolutely anything.

Then a programme has teething issues, which although nowadays can last in years rather than months, are fairly irrelevant over a 40 yr lifespan of a platform.

Add to this countries will want the best price, and will want penalties for late delivery etc, and it all gets messy.

When it arrives, it'll be a good jet (even thought the UK should have bought the C). A year or two late will make very little difference. The UK will stand up its first F-35 unit later this year too, as 17(R) Sqn becomes the Operational Evaluation Unit.

Back to Top
allardjd View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Florida - USA
Points: 4506
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote allardjd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2013 at 4:52pm
If past programs are any indicator, here's what to expect....

1) The overall program and the per unit costs will end up being significantly higher than the early forecasts. It's ALWAYS so.

2) The aircraft will have some unforeseen problems and will not be as good as the vendor's initial claims.

3) The aircraft will be effective, will do most of what is claimed almost as well as claimed. Most of the detractors claims will turn out to be exaggerated hype. Follow-on modifications and models will bring fixes and improvements that will make the type even better.

4) Military organizations that use them will find work-arounds and other measures that will obviate many/most/all of the operational, maintenance and performance shortfalls - or will just learn to live with them.

I suspect that the above can be safely applied to most any warplane ever to reach series production. The fatally flawed ones usually don't get that far - there have been exceptions, but not many.

The reverse is not true - sometimes very worthy aircraft do not get into production, typically for reasons of economics or politics.
John Allard
Back to Top
tom burnside View Drop Down
P1
P1
Avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2008
Location: portsmouth,UK
Points: 868
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom burnside Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2013 at 10:36pm
So the JSF is a good aircraft just has its problems. And Charlie I disagree with you when you say we should have bought the C in my opinion if we was going to buy another aircraft we should have cancelled the F-35 order all together. Put catapults on the carriers and bought the Super Hornet that way we would have the aircraft even before the first carrier had been built. Plus as soon as the carrier was cleared for service all they would have to say to the pilots is theres a carrier out there go and land on it.
Dont Let Her Die She Wants To Fly
Back to Top
Hot_Charlie View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 1839
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hot_Charlie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2013 at 10:48pm
Originally posted by tom burnside tom burnside wrote:

And Charlie I disagree with you when you say we should have bought the C in my opinion if we was going to buy another aircraft we should have cancelled the F-35 order all together. Put catapults on the carriers and bought the Super Hornet that way we would have the aircraft even before the first carrier had been built.


Aha, that's a different solution altogether, and one I don't disagree with.

That said, due to the technical expertise provided by UK Plc to the project, it was never a serious option. The greater range and payload of the C would have far better suited our needs than the B. The only reason to buy the B would be if you were limited by carrier size, which we're not.

Had we bought another fleet of Invincible class carriers, I'd have seen the logic of a STOVL variant. I suspect there was a lot of internal pressure to go STOVL both from the military politics (RAF and FAA hierarchy being very Harrier heavy in the early 2000s and onwards), and industry as a lot of the flight control work was done in the UK (VAAC Harrier for example).
Back to Top
allardjd View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Florida - USA
Points: 4506
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote allardjd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2013 at 11:43pm
The F-35-B has one and only one capability that the A and C do not have - STOVL. The cost for that is greatly reduced range, payload and g-loading limits and greater complexity. As a combat aircraft the B-model will be hobbled by those compromises made in favor or STOVL.

As for the carriers - it's been covered here before. Put in cats and arresting gear and any naval aircraft can be used, at commissioning or into the future. Leave them out and you have a one-bird bird farm, probably for the life of the ships.

John Allard
Back to Top
tom burnside View Drop Down
P1
P1
Avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2008
Location: portsmouth,UK
Points: 868
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom burnside Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Mar 2013 at 9:19pm
My opinion is it doesn't matter what variant we go for we are in the same position as everyone else who has ordered the F-35. Rising costs delays etc.
Dont Let Her Die She Wants To Fly
Back to Top
allardjd View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Florida - USA
Points: 4506
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote allardjd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Mar 2013 at 10:17pm
Quote we are in the same position as everyone else who has ordered the F-35. Rising costs delays etc.


Name a top-line warplane in the last three decades that came in on schedule and on budget with no significant development problems to solve along the way.

Quote ...it doesn't matter what variant we go for...


In terms of cost and schedule certainty, that is true. In terms of war-fighting capability and future flexibility to use other types on your aircraft carriers, it matters very much.

The B model may be able to hop out of a field or off a small deck with no catapult but it does so with far less combat payload and range, and when flown in ACM, must restrict its maneuvering to remain within the lower g-loading limits of that particular airframe. All that is because it's carrying a huge fan, gearbox and more doors than the average motel.

The A and C fly further (or loiter longer, or both), carry more combat stores and have a distinct advantage in a knife-fight. I will admit, however, that the latter is becoming more or less passé` with the use of BVR and HOBS air to air weapons. The sensor suite of all the F-35 models is optimized for those kinds of weapons.
John Allard
Back to Top
tom burnside View Drop Down
P1
P1
Avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2008
Location: portsmouth,UK
Points: 868
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom burnside Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 10:32pm
I understand that the C has more range etc. But the harrier got on fine so why shouldn't the B.
Dont Let Her Die She Wants To Fly
Back to Top
allardjd View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Florida - USA
Points: 4506
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote allardjd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2013 at 7:05am
Quote I understand that the C has more range etc. But the harrier got on fine so why shouldn't the B.


Simply put, because it is significantly inferior to other types in terms of range, paylad and g-limits. It will have better sensors and avionics than earlier types, but the weapon and fuel load will be quite limiting. The USMC, the primary customer for the B model, has as it's primary mission, close air support for its Marines on the ground. Their doctrine focuses on having their aircraft based as close as possible to the front, making STOVL valuable for making use of unimproved, makeshift strips and the small amphib carriers that are typically part of an amphibious landing task force. For that role, and with the assumption that the Navy C-models and/or the AF A models will provide CAP or will establish air superiority or supremacy from carriers or bases further from the action if required, the B is a viable platform. If all you have is the B, you are choosing to be second best, at best. It really comes down to how much value you place on the STOVL capability.

The Harrier was not much of an ACM platform. It did quite well in the Falklands against what was mainly a combination of non-fighter types and attack aircraft that were operating near the limit of their range. The latter were heavily loaded with ground attack stores and were rightly focused on surface targets. There were relatively few Argentine assets that sortied in an air-to-air role to challenge the Harriers. The UK did not have air supremacy by any means, but because of the geography, the logistics and the limitations of the Argentine air fleet, neither did they face a serious air to air challenge. Their primary role was defendng against the attack aircraft and taking out recon and supply types when they entered the zone. It's not like the Argies were flying fighter sweeps or large masses of escorts for their attack planes. It was beyond their capability.

I think you'd have to go back to the early Vietnam war era, at least, to find first-line fighter types that would have been inferior to the Harrier in air to air combat. Several types whose day in the sun has come and gone (e.g F-4 Phantom, F-14 Tomcat) could easily have bested Harriers. Yes, the Harrier had a few air to air tricks, but to say an air force equipped with them could have bested a similar sized force, consisting of even some fairly old conventional fighter types, is a bit of a stretch.

The Harrier was a magnificent acheivement, a real ground-breaker in some respects, but it never was a credible air superiority asset against contemporary fighter types.
John Allard
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2013 at 10:34am
Quote I suspect that the above can be safely applied to most any warplane ever to reach series production.
Absolutely.
 
Quote Name a top-line warplane in the last three decades that came in on schedule and on budget with no significant development problems to solve along the way.
 
Again, spot on. Same applies to the majority of civilian aircraft. Hence, why people should stop moaning about the 787 and it's issues.
Back to Top
Hot_Charlie View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 1839
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hot_Charlie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2013 at 8:29pm
Originally posted by tom burnside tom burnside wrote:

But the harrier got on fine so why shouldn't the B.


Apart from having a loss rate of about double most other fast jet military aircraft. Modern conflicts seem to revolve around either strike missions (GW1, Kosovo, GW2) or missions involving extended loitering and dropping weapons as and when called (GW2 post initial strike and Afghanistan). Both of the above benefit from an aircraft with better range and greater load (ie bomb) carrying ability.

STOVL is a 50s/60s cold war gimmick. The US can still afford it, as they will have a USN carrier fleet alongside any USMC STOVL force on their mini carriers.

The RN are getting carriers that would have been big enough for catapults and arrested recoveries, and, since the 60s, just about the whole world has had 9-12,000ft runways built with parallel taxyways and the like. Even the Falklands now two, gusting three landing areas.

F-35B? Bonkers.
Back to Top
allardjd View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Florida - USA
Points: 4506
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote allardjd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2013 at 7:29am
Quote ...is it one particular variant or is it with all of them cause ive read the A has had problems but nothing about the B or C.


I missed this in the OP. I can't answer it definitively but there were some fairly serious problems with the original tailhook of the C model, requiring some re-design. The shape of the hook and the hydraulic damping both had to be changed. I don't know if the new version has been successfully tested yet or not, but had read some time ago that the fix was in the works.

I'm not aware of any details of other problems with any of the models, but I'm sure there must be some for all three, independently and collectively. It would be pretty amazing if that were not the case.
John Allard
Back to Top
allardjd View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Florida - USA
Points: 4506
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote allardjd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Nov 2014 at 6:23am
Dredging up an old thread here - it appears the F35-C tailhook problem may be solved.  The USN has made a successful trap on the Nimitz in an F35-C, the naval version.


The article is full of lightweight fluff and doesn't say much that's important, other than the fact that a successful carrier landing has been performed.


John Allard
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down