F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

FalconSlayers

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
6,048
Likes
20,472
Country flag
Some fresh news of the flying brick :
Block 4 Software Issues Could Cause F-35 Capability Delays, Costly Retrofits

Following the latest review by the Government Accountability Office, DoD is expected to again push back the schedule for the sprawling F-35 modernization effort.
The new report is yet another slap for the Joint Strike Fighter, which is already in DoD’s budget-cutting cross-hairs due to the plane’s exorbitant maintenance costs.
...
GAO said that costs of the effort had ballooned by $1.9 billion between 2019 and 2020, bringing the overall cost to about $14.4 billion.
...
(The current 2027 deadline for Block 4 completion already represents a three-year delay from the 2024 deadline DoD set in its 2018 baseline for the effort.)
:pound::pound::pound:


When you try to over engineer an aircraft.

USAshould understand that the time has gone when it was the one with the best technologies and the onewho will remain a superpower.
 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
5,267
Likes
3,775
Country flag
When you try to over engineer an aircraft.

USAshould understand that the time has gone when it was the one with the best technologies and the onewho will remain a superpower.
They tried to study a single airframe for ground based fighter, carrier embarked fighter and STOVL fighter. It was too ambitious. Too many compromises ! At the end the jet is average in all fields.

Same for weapon system. The radar is probably very potent, but they are too many connected sub system and a overweighted software nearly impossible to fine tune.

It is not impossible that the systme will never work perfectly. As soon as they fix a problem, another occur....
 

FalconSlayers

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
6,048
Likes
20,472
Country flag
They tried to study a single airframe for ground based fighter, carrier embarked fighter and STOVL fighter. It was too ambitious. Too many compromises ! At the end the jet is average in all fields.

Same for weapon system. The radar is probably very potent, but they are too many connected sub system and a overweighted software nearly impossible to fine tune.

It is not impossible that the systme will never work perfectly. As soon as they fix a problem, another occur....
They didn’t do proper research and feasibility studies to understand if 5th gen can really replace 4.5 Gen?
They should have gone for a dual engine F-35 with GE-F-414EPE Engines but then Americans have a habit of draining and throwing money and always do something new and never stick to the existing technologies if feasible, so instead they opted to make it a single engine aircraft powered by the worlds most powerful fighter jet engine but still wasn’t sufficient to power it and give enough thrust, Single engine dimensions so huge that made F-35 bulkier. Then they spent more money on transforming a single platform into a Airforce, Naval carrier based and a Marine STOVL based coz Americans have a habit of flexing dollars so much so that instead of developing the sole F-35B STOVL for both US Navy and US Marines they made a separate F-35C with bigger wingspan than the F-35A for carriers.

And of course the way it was developed is a joke.
 

SARTHAK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2020
Messages
310
Likes
429
Country flag
They didn’t do proper research and feasibility studies to understand if 5th gen can really replace 4.5 Gen?
They should have gone for a dual engine F-35 with GE-F-414EPE Engines but then Americans have a habit of draining and throwing money and always do something new and never stick to the existing technologies if feasible, so instead they opted to make it a single engine aircraft powered by the worlds most powerful fighter jet engine but still wasn’t sufficient to power it and give enough thrust, Single engine dimensions so huge that made F-35 bulkier. Then they spent more money on transforming a single platform into a Airforce, Naval carrier based and a Marine STOVL based coz Americans have a habit of flexing dollars so much so that instead of developing the sole F-35B STOVL for both US Navy and US Marines they made a separate F-35C with bigger wingspan than the F-35A for carriers.

And of course the way it was developed is a joke.
they could hve made f35 (stovl only variant) and for the rest upgrade f22 with f35 sensors and radars to make a new f25,BUT they wanted export oppurtunities so.... f22 frames could not be used
 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
5,267
Likes
3,775
Country flag
They didn’t do proper research and feasibility studies to understand if 5th gen can really replace 4.5 Gen?
They should have gone for a dual engine F-35 with GE-F-414EPE Engines but then Americans have a habit of draining and throwing money and always do something new and never stick to the existing technologies if feasible, so instead they opted to make it a single engine aircraft powered by the worlds most powerful fighter jet engine but still wasn’t sufficient to power it and give enough thrust, Single engine dimensions so huge that made F-35 bulkier. Then they spent more money on transforming a single platform into a Airforce, Naval carrier based and a Marine STOVL based coz Americans have a habit of flexing dollars so much so that instead of developing the sole F-35B STOVL for both US Navy and US Marines they made a separate F-35C with bigger wingspan than the F-35A for carriers.

And of course the way it was developed is a joke.
As a F16 replacement (mainly), a single engine was not a bad choice.
5th gen is also a good choice if, as LM promised it, the bird is affordable. It is not, specially on sustain costs.
The main mistake was the STOVL variant. It is this one that is responsible for structure weakness, overweight, load reduction, shaped as a sugar piece jet. The low production one causes the two others maximum penalty.

The right choice would have been 2 variants : on for air and CATOBAR navy use, eventually with two different wings (one foldable and one not) AND one different variant for STOVL.
 

FalconSlayers

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
6,048
Likes
20,472
Country flag
As a F16 replacement (mainly), a single engine was not a bad choice.
5th gen is also a good choice if, as LM promised it, the bird is affordable. It is not, specially on sustain costs.
The main mistake was the STOVL variant. It is this one that is responsible for structure weakness, overweight, load reduction, shaped as a sugar piece jet. The low production one causes the two others maximum penalty.

The right choice would have been 2 variants : on for air and CATOBAR navy use, eventually with two different wings (one foldable and one not) AND one different variant for STOVL.
Or probably only F-35B which could takeoff and land anywhere anyhow.
 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
5,267
Likes
3,775
Country flag
The weapon system of F35 will be very, very difficult to fine tune.
Just an exemple : during the Rafale developpment phase, there was a smoll problem occured on landing gears hatch. The changed the software... But because all is linked through data buses, they create a new problem on the steering wheel !
Just see how Rafale evolved : from only air to air F1 stand, to slightly multirole F2, to fully multirole F3, then F3.2, F3.3, F3.4, F3R etc.... it takes 20 years. LM was too confident. They studied from the beginning a huge sofware, without the proper methods and right time. It's not impossible they will never succeed. Only a limited capacity system.
 

Rassil Krishnan

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2019
Messages
805
Likes
2,277
Country flag
they could hve made f35 (stovl only variant) and for the rest upgrade f22 with f35 sensors and radars to make a new f25,BUT they wanted export oppurtunities so.... f22 frames could not be used
F22 can't be made again as the production factories have been closed and so they had to come with a clean new design.it is just that the usual procurement and development habits of the usa do not have much respect for being financially prudent and also they might have made some design decisions that were questionable.that is all.it is a good aircraft.it is just that the fifth generation aircraft does not seem to give a much needed jump than what has been invested into it.most previous jumps gave a much better return in terms of tech for the cost money and time.now it seems many countries can build 4.5 gen aircraft and have 80 percent of the capabilities for their needs.
 

SARTHAK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2020
Messages
310
Likes
429
Country flag
F22 can't be made again as the production factories have been closed and so they had to come with a clean new design.it is just that the usual procurement and development habits of the usa do not have much respect for being financially prudent and also they might have made some design decisions that were questionable.that is all.it is a good aircraft.it is just that the fifth generation aircraft does not seem to give a much needed jump than what has been invested into it.most previous jumps gave a much better return in terms of tech for the cost money and time.now it seems many countries can build 4.5 gen aircraft and have 80 percent of the capabilities for their needs.
something like kf x should have been pursued by usa ,btw usaf is like spoilt brat(wasting money unneccessarily )
 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
5,267
Likes
3,775
Country flag
Congress Could Buy Fewer 'Fiasco' F-35 Fighters


  • A ranking member on a Congressional subcommittee referred to the F-35 as a “fiasco” and warned the new Congress would put a stop to the jet’s high costs.
  • Although the price of the F-35 is falling, the cost to fly the plane is still high, and there are further looming costs of updating older jets.
  • The criticism comes just a few weeks after the head of the Armed Services committee called the jet a “rathole.”
 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
5,267
Likes
3,775
Country flag
The F-35 costs too much and performs too poorly to justify continuing to purchase it

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

To be the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, Washington Democrat, has to be highly partisan and comprehensively loyal to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s radical agenda. Thus it’s tempting to ignore what he said about the F-35, which is supposed to be the top-line fighter for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines for the next 30 years.
But given what we already know about the F-35, and what Air Force Chief of Staff Charles Brown recently admitted about it, it would be a big mistake to ignore what Mr. Smith said.

Illustration on the F-35 by Linas Garsys/ The Washington Times
Illustration on the F-35 by Linas Garsys/ The Washington Times



Calling for the termination of the F-35 program on March 5, Mr. Smith said that he wanted to, “ … stop throwing money down that particular rathole.” He said, “What does the F-35 give us? And is there a way to cut our losses? Is there a way to not keep spending that much money for such a low capability because, as you know, the sustainment costs are brutal.”

The F-35 has been plagued by myriad serious problems and extremely high cost since the contract for it was signed 20 years ago. It required that one aircraft design would satisfy all three services and that production would take place concurrently with development which creates a whole different set of problems.

That approach created two sets of problems. First, because the physical differences in operating from a carrier deck and a paved runway, no aircraft can meet both the Air Force’s and Navy’s requirements. Second, that concurrent development requires repetitive engineering and multiplies costs.
Computer modeling was used to design the aircraft, but when the first F-35s took to the skies they performed far differently — and much less well — than the computers said they would. As a result, the computer models and the aircraft’s design have evolved continuously necessitating the refitting of already-delivered aircraft to the new designs again and again at significant cost.

(About 500 of the planned 2,500 F-35s have already been delivered — problems and all — to the Air Force, Navy and Marines.)

A number of serious problems are still being encountered with the F-35’s computer software. The various computers and computer-controlled equipment in the fighter run on more than 25 million lines of code. The developers soon found that when they fixed one software problem, three more would result from the fix. The software troubles, and other major problems, remain unresolved.

The result is that the F-35 is what the Air Force used to call a “hangar queen.” The aircraft is so unreliable that it can’t be depended on to fly and fight when the stuff hits the fan. Ellen Lord, the outgoing undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, said on Jan. 19 that only 36% of F-35s were fully mission capable at that point. That means if you have ten F-35s on the flight line, only six are going to be able to fight that day.

Much of that problem results from the fact that too many companies — spread around over a dozen nations — make parts for the F-35. According to a November report by the Government Accountability Office, “… the F-35 supply chain does not have enough spare parts available to keep aircraft flying enough of the time necessary to meet warfighter requirements.”

All that adds up to a pretty lousy return on an immense investment for the most expensive weapon system the U.S. has ever bought

This year’s budget for the F-35 is $398 billion. That’s more than the total being spent on the three top Navy shipbuilding programs (ballistic missile and attack submarines and destroyers) and $44 billion more than the total expenditures on 11 other major DoD weapon system programs ranging from the KC-46 tanker aircraft to the CH-47 helicopters.

Mr. Smith’s remarks came days after Gen. Brown admitted, in carefully hedged terms, that the F-35 is a failure. The F-35 was supposed to be the “new 5th generation” fighter that would fill all the Air Force’s and Navy’s needs. Announcing a new study of tactical fighter requirements, Gen. Brown said that the Air Force needs not only a sixth-generation fighter but also a new “5th-generation minus / 4.5th-generation aircraft.”

That means the Air Force and Navy need — right now — to fill the gap created by the F-35’s inability to perform its mission. They will have to resort to a mixture of updated far older F-16s, F-15s and F-18s to fill that gap. It’s hard to see how they can afford those aircraft, and the new 6th-generation fighters, if money is still being poured into the F-35.

In 2014, the most honest verdict on the F-35 was delivered by the then-commander of Air Combat Command, Gen. Michael Hostage. He said that unless the F-22 was flying with the F-35 to defend it, the F-35 was “irrelevant” to air warfare. The Air Force has only about 185 F-22s. You can’t protect 2,500 F-35s with 185 F-22s.

If Gen. Brown had spoken forthrightly, he would have said flatly that the F-35 is a failure. The F-35 costs too much and performs too poorly to justify continuing to purchase it. It’s long past time to cancel the F-35 program, fill the gap it creates, and get on with the development of new fighters that can meet the warfighters’ needs.

• Jed Babbin, a deputy undersecretary of Defense in the George H.W. Bush administration, is the author of “In the Words of Our Enemies.”

 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,369
Likes
1,051
Country flag
They didn’t do proper research and feasibility studies to understand if 5th gen can really replace 4.5 Gen?
They should have gone for a dual engine F-35 with GE-F-414EPE Engines but then Americans have a habit of draining and throwing money and always do something new and never stick to the existing technologies if feasible, so instead they opted to make it a single engine aircraft powered by the worlds most powerful fighter jet engine but still wasn’t sufficient to power it and give enough thrust, Single engine dimensions so huge that made F-35 bulkier. Then they spent more money on transforming a single platform into a Airforce, Naval carrier based and a Marine STOVL based coz Americans have a habit of flexing dollars so much so that instead of developing the sole F-35B STOVL for both US Navy and US Marines they made a separate F-35C with bigger wingspan than the F-35A for carriers.

And of course the way it was developed is a joke.
They want to keep their forces one generation ahead of anyone else, sticking to the existing technologies won't achieve that. They are already pioneer in every sector, they have to take risk in new tech and new concept, otherwise others will catch up. Any country that wants to be a military power is never short of this kind of unsuccessful conception. Other countries can copy American's successful ideas in most of time, Americans get no one to learn from.
 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
5,267
Likes
3,775
Country flag
outch !!!!

The operating costs of the F-35 are high because they are designed to be” interview with Dan Grazier from the Project On Government Oversight

 

omaebakabaka

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
1,389
Likes
2,859
outch !!!!

The operating costs of the F-35 are high because they are designed to be” interview with Dan Grazier from the Project On Government Oversight

Are you English-French or something like that or just live in Englistan?

This is a dumb plane designed to dominate over small nations that can't defend themselves....its a pig in terms of weight and every algorithm probably maps to O(n) squared at best instead of commonly desired log. It demonstrates the corruption of all elements of US government.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top