The F-35 JSF?
Go to page 1, 2  Next  :| |:
-> Spam-O-Rama

#1: The F-35 JSF? Author: Dimitri PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:44 pm
    ----
I have my opinion, when I was younger reading about it when it was just awarded to Lockheed from the likes of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics I was very interested in it, but my opinion of it in the decade since has fallen to below ground level.

Any ways, as our Australian members know, outside of the US there is quite a bit of controversy on the fighter. Especially here in Canada as its just been put on hold following KPMG's report and the backlash of the last year or so due to the costs of the program.

I had been arguing about it recently on another web forum, and summarized the points I made, the ones that are the most critical, and the ones that can be proven, and not arguing over non-existent glossy sales brochure specifications that Lockheed keeps talking about.

www.northerndtool.com/canadian-f35

Dimitri

#2: Re: The F-35 JSF? Author: SuzanneLocation: Eugene, Oregon PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:12 pm
    ----
Guess it bothers you.... Popcorn

#3: Re: The F-35 JSF? Author: slimjimLocation: Fort Worth TX PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:18 pm
    ----
Dimitri, I can tell you put a lot of effort into this write-up. However, there are several points that are incorrect and others that are outdated. Also, why would Canada want more F-18s when the original fleet served your country so poorly?

#4: Re: The F-35 JSF? Author: Dimitri PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:21 pm
    ----
The original CF-18's served Canada poorly? I've never heard a Canadian say that. Wink

Only time there were "issues" with the CF-18 is Kosovo, and the same reason it has had such a high attrition rate was due to a decade of government cutbacks in spending leading to the RCAF into cannibalizing parts from one plane to keep another one flying.

The US Navy updated their original F/A-18's in the mid-90's and were prepared for Kosovo, Canada didn't do it till a decade later, and only till after Kosovo showed that the fighters were ill prepared for it.

Dimitri

#5: Re: The F-35 JSF? Author: slimjimLocation: Fort Worth TX PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:06 pm
    ----
The CF-18s were plaqued with structural cracks and were severly restricted in order to preserve airframe life. Canadian pilots could not fly them in a tactical manuer so the planes would last long enough to be replaced.

#6: Re: The F-35 JSF? Author: dhc4everLocation: Ipswich, Queensland Australia PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:11 pm
    ----
slimjim wrote:
The CF-18s were plaqued with structural cracks and were severly restricted in order to preserve airframe life. Canadian pilots could not fly them in a tactical manuer so the planes would last long enough to be replaced.

Another quality item from the USA.......
The US navy and RAAF also suffered the same issues, the canuks werent alone.
The Canadians and aussies have similar issues due to a small fleet that is now over 25 years old and approaching the limit on unmodified airframe hours.
The US navies answer was buy the F18 e/f, retire the F18 A/B and leave the C/D models to the USMC.
Canada and Australias answer was to implement a center barrel replacement program on some airframes and order the F35.

Now that the F35 looks like being at least 3 to 5 years late for the 1st tranche of aircraft things are getting a bit tight.
Our answer was to retire the F111 and order 24 F18 F's as an interim fighter/bomber, now that further delays and cost rises have occurred we'll probably end up getting more F18 f's, upgrading some to Growler configuration and delaying and reducing our F35 order (was going to be 100 units).
So now we wait while this sorry saga plays out.
Why is it we could develop the technologies to go to the moon in less than 10 years, but it now takes 20 to get an operational fighter in the air?

#7: Re: The F-35 JSF? Author: Dimitri PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:27 am
    ----
slimjim,

All aircraft more or less get cracks.

Heck even the F-35 is already showing sings of cracks, all three variants with the F-35B showing cracks at 1/5th its full life time (1500 hours verses 8000 hours).

dhc4ever,

Take a look at the F-22? It's Oxygen system still has to be fixed. Shocked

Dimitri

#8: Re: The F-35 JSF? Author: PaulSLocation: South-Eastern Washington - the State PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:09 am
    ----
Maybe someone ought to take the next step and by-pass the JSF and start building RPAs with true fighter/attack technology.
The remotely piloted aircraft could be smaller, lighter, more maneuverable and carry more fire-power than an aircraft large enough to carry a man and all the systems to protect him.
Build in the current stealth technology and you have air superiority on a budget that even third world countries could afford.

#9: Re: The F-35 JSF? Author: dhc4everLocation: Ipswich, Queensland Australia PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:48 am
    ----
PaulS wrote:
Maybe someone ought to take the next step and by-pass the JSF and start building RPAs with true fighter/attack technology.
The remotely piloted aircraft could be smaller, lighter, more maneuverable and carry more fire-power than an aircraft large enough to carry a man and all the systems to protect him.
Build in the current stealth technology and you have air superiority on a budget that even third world countries could afford.

Paul,
its already in the pipeline.
The F22 and F35 will probably be the last manned fighter the west produces.
As much as I hate wikipedia, this has a semi informative burst on the subject.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-45

Cheers.

#10: Re: The F-35 JSF? Author: dhc4everLocation: Ipswich, Queensland Australia PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:56 am
    ----
Dimitri,
I spent over 30 years maintaining helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, the last being the F-111.
The oxy system on the F22 is an interesting case of everything working on paper to the plan and then showing up with an unexpected catastrophic fault after a few years of real operations.
Oxy's a funny gas, you need it and it can and will kill you if something goes wrong.

Cracks, yep they kept me employed for over 30 years, looking for them and fixing them.
Have a look at why the F 15 A thru C's were retired in a hurry.
Having the 2 major longerons fail and the cockpit separate from the fuselage with the pilot on board really highlights a major cockup in your maintenance program.

#11: Re: The F-35 JSF? Author: slimjimLocation: Fort Worth TX PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:56 pm
    ----
PaulS wrote:
Build in the current stealth technology and you have air superiority on a budget that even third world countries could afford.

the air vehicles are less expensive but they would not be able to afford the communication/satellite system to control them.

#12: Re: The F-35 JSF? Author: slimjimLocation: Fort Worth TX PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:59 pm
    ----
dhc4ever wrote:
Having the 2 major longerons fail and the cockpit separate from the fuselage with the pilot on board really highlights a major cockup in your maintenance program.

Don't blame maintenance. The longerons were incorrectly manufactured and the flaw was not found during manufacture.

#13: Re: The F-35 JSF? Author: English MikeLocation: Whitehaven, Cumbria, UK PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:31 pm
    ----
Were building two aircraft carriers here that will be useless without the STOVL version of the F-35.
No CATOBAR ability, so nothing else will work & no carrier launched in flight refuelling.
Quite frankly; the UK would have been far better off buying FA-18 & using the $ saved for the newest carrier launch system. Mad

#14: Re: The F-35 JSF? Author: Dimitri PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:46 pm
    ----
Don't forget limited ability to actually land vertically, Lockheed already admitted that pure vertical landings on the F-35B should be limited due to air frame and engine stresses.

Hiding

Dimitri

#15: Re: The F-35 JSF? Author: dhc4everLocation: Ipswich, Queensland Australia PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:59 am
    ----
slimjim wrote:
dhc4ever wrote:
Having the 2 major longerons fail and the cockpit separate from the fuselage with the pilot on board really highlights a major cockup in your maintenance program.

Don't blame maintenance. The longerons were incorrectly manufactured and the flaw was not found during manufacture.

Yep manufacturing was to blame for the less than stellar manufacturing process and cost cutting.
I do blame the maintenance system for NOT finding the fault over the 20 odd years the F15 A-C was in the air, that's quite a few MAJOR deeper level maintenance inspections.
Having a catastrophic failure and THEN finding the manufacturing fault in 40% of your fleet should never have happened, if the system was effective it should have showed up in the first or second DM inspection before the failure in flight.



-> Spam-O-Rama

All times are GMT - 7 Hours

Go to page 1, 2  Next  :| |:
Page 1 of 2