• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sharpey
  • Start date Start date
Somehow the CBC  in their vendetta, I mean excellent reporting on the F-35, missed out on an interview with this guy.


http://www.ausn.org/NewsPublications/Magazine/MagazineArticles/tabid/2170/ID/15730/How-the-F-35-is-designed-to-work.aspx

He was probably too busy the day the CBC contacted him.  Probably doing laundry or whatever.
 
Oh? I was waiting on their report that Singapore looks to be purchasing 75 Bee models. Or one of the most glowing GAO reports you'll ever see.
 
HB_Pencil said:
Oh? I was waiting on their report that Singapore looks to be purchasing 75 Bee models. Or one of the most glowing GAO reports you'll ever see.

Guess the Singaporeans missed that brilliant CBC expose on the Super Hornet costing half as much and being just as good . . .


 
Aside from the commentary by General Iwasaki below, Mistubishi Heavy Industries is expected to construct a plant to build Japan's F-35s. It would eventually provide the US and its Pacific allies with a central repair and replacement plant in the region, one in addition to any repair centers the US builds in the region.

Reuters via Yahoo link


a860d59a-94f4-4a1b-b68e-19cca294a206.jpg


Japan's military chief says F-35 is "best fighter"

Reuters

By Kiyoshi Takenaka | Reuters – Wed, 27 Mar, 2013 9:57 AM EDT

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan's highest-ranking uniformed officer said on Wednesday that Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighters were the best choice for the nation's future operational needs as Tokyo wrestles with tensions with China and increasingly belligerent North Korea.

The vote of confidence in the state-of-the-art U.S. warplane comes amid reports that some nations that have placed orders for the F-35s are reconsidering their plans.

Shigeru Iwasaki, chief of the Japanese Self-Defence Forces' Joint Staff, also said advancement of North Korea's arms technology in a series of nuclear and missile tests posed a serious threat to Japan, but its missile defense system should provide the country with sufficient protection.

"When I was the head of the air force, I spearheaded the decision (to procure F-35s). Or, rather, we drew up a plan, which was then approved by defense minister," said Iwasaki, a veteran fighter pilot who used to fly F-15s, Japan's current mainstay combat aeroplane.

"There were various candidates. But I still believe the F-35 is the best fighter, when we think about Japan's future national security," he said in an interview with Reuters.

Dutch orders for F-35 warplanes are likely to be cut back, sources close to the discussions told Reuters last week, citing cost overruns and delays in the program, uncertainty over the Netherlands' defense strategy and budget cuts across Europe.

U.S. officials fear cuts in orders by the Dutch or other buyers could trigger a "death spiral" in the Pentagon's biggest arms program by driving up the price of remaining orders, leading to more cancellations.

Japan, one of the closest U.S. allies in Asia, has remained steadfast in its plans to buy 42 F-35s, with the first four planes scheduled for delivery by March 2017.

Iwasaki described North Korea's nuclear and missile tests as "unforgivable".

"I think, after a series of tests, their technology has reached a certain level, helping them acquire capability to launch missiles with a very long range ... I believe it's becoming a very serious situation when it comes to our national security," he said.

North Korea conducted its third nuclear test in February although it is not believed to have acquired weapons capability. But it has threatened U.S. naval bases in Japan, which are within the range of its medium-range missiles.

Iwasaki said, however, Japan was sufficiently protected by its missile defense system, equipped with Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptors and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptors.

SM-3 interceptors are capable of shooting down a ballistic missile outside the earth's atmosphere, while PAC-3 interceptors provide back-up protection as the missile returns to earth.


(...)
 
National Post

F-35 design problems make night flying impossible, increase risk of being shot down, U.S. pilots warn

OTTAWA — It seems U.S. fighter pilots have lost that loving feeling for their new F-35 stealth jets.

At least that’s the impression given in a scathing Pentagon report leaked this week that identifies a huge number of problems facing the U.S. military’s F-35 fleet — including fears that it can easily be shot down.

From radars that don’t work, to blurry vision from the aircraft’s sophisticated helmet, to an inability to fly through clouds, the report, which includes pilot comments, paints a picture of a jet nowhere near ready for real-life operations.

F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin is refusing to comment, but the report’s revelations will likely give Canadian military planners pause as they continue assessing options for replacing Canada’s aging CF-18s.

The February report from the Pentagon’s chief testing office is based on trial run at the U.S. military’s Eglin Air Force Base in Florida from September to November of last year.

The testing, which was supposed to determine whether aircraft the U.S. had already bought from Lockheed Martin were good enough to start training U.S. fighter pilots with, was actually supposed to take place in August 2011.

But it had to be postponed because a number of critical issues were identified in the aircraft — the majority of which remained unresolved more than a year later.

Because those problems — including issues with the ejector seat — hadn’t been resolved, only experienced U.S. Air Force pilots were allowed to participate in the two-month test.


In addition, a second aircraft had to follow the first at all times, and engine starts had to be monitored with a special equipment to reduce the likelihood of a fire.

Even then, the testing was extremely basic and “did not cover . . . in essence, everything that makes the F-35A a modern, advanced fighter,” reads the report, obtained by the Washington-based watchdog group Project on Government Oversight.

“Aircraft operating limitations prohibit flying the aircraft at night or in instrument meteorological conditions,” the report reads, “hence pilots must avoid clouds and other weather.

“These restrictions are in place because testing has not been completed to certify the aircraft for night and instrument flight,” the report adds. “The aircraft is also currently prohibited from flying close formation, aerobatics, and stalls.”


The report also notes that the F-35A, which is the version the Harper government had intended to buy, “does not yet have the capability to train in . . . any actual combat capability, because it is still early in system development.”

Meanwhile, feedback from the four pilots chosen to take part in the testing was also extremely critical of the aircraft.

The pilots, all of whom had at least 1,000 hours in other U.S. fighter jets, complained that the radar was often not working, their state-of-the-art helmets gave them double-vision or blurry vision, and their flight suits were too hot.

They also blasted a design feature that made it difficult if not impossible to see “aft,” or behind them — a serious threat to the aircraft’s ability to fight.

“The head rest is too large and will impede aft visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements,” one pilot was quoted as saying. “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned (killed) every time.”


The report also found problems with maintaining the F-35s.

For example, mechanics are supposed to be able to remove the aircraft’s engine and install a new one in two hours, but the mean time was 52 hours — or more than two days.

The aircraft also experienced difficulties when the overnight temperature dropped below 15 degrees Celsius — an occurrence that will be extremely common in Canada.

“To mitigate this problem, maintenance crews put jets in heated hangars overnight,” the report reads.

“Moving jets in and out of a hangar to keep them warm involves five personnel for three to four hours per shift. The parking of flyable jets in hangar also interfered with maintenance because these flyable jets occupied space that would otherwise be used for jets requiring repair.”

The report also found the aircraft were not as reliable as expected as many required more maintenance than anticipated.

The entire U.S. F-35 fleet was grounded two weeks ago when a crack was found in a test aircraft’s engine, the second such grounding in as many months. The F-35s are now allowed to fly again.


The report comes at a critical time as the U.S. Defense Department is facing billions in budget cuts and there are concerns the stealth fighter, which has
been plagued by delays and cost overruns, will become a casualty.

The Harper government pushed the reset button on its plans to purchase the F-35 last year after National Defence put the full cost of Canada buying and operating 65 of the stealth fighters until 2052 at more than $45 billion.

This came after years of criticism over what has been seen as the Conservatives’ refusal to fully disclose how much the F-35s would cost, and after the auditor general raised serious concerns about the Defence Department’s handling of the file.

Bureaucrats have been ordered back to the drawing board to again examine what missions Canada’s jets will perform in the future, what threats they will face, and what fighter capabilities are currently available.

The Royal Canadian Air Force will lead the review with support from other federal departments, while a panel of independent experts has been tasked with monitoring the process to ensure it is rigorous and impartial.

While no timelines have been laid out, a final report will be produced to guide the government as it contemplates the next step in replacing the CF-18s.
 
You have to love that article.  From the very first words, it starts off factually, completely,100% incorret.


"F-35 design problems make night flying impossible"


http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=-ptkwybn5tU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D-ptkwybn5tU

Guess if they can fake the moon landings, they a fake an F-35 doing a night flight.

If they start off completely wrong, what else in the "story" is also incorrectly reported?


Perhaps if the story had provided some of the context of the report, the claims would be more comprehensible.  Actually checking claims and facts seems to be a forgotten part of modern journalism.

On the other hand, we might have a future CBC hall of fame reporter in the making.
 
It's not a physical flight issue as the photos clearly attest to, rather it's airworthiness and certification.  I don't think it will ever be as bad as the RAF's/MoD's Mk.3 Chinooks, far from it.  It does, however, take time to complete full testing before the airworthiness authority grants technical and operational airworthiness clearances and releases the weapon system to service.

Not that the program isn't without its problems, but it's not time to crush the airframes and burn the plans just yet.


Regards
G2G
 
Haletown said:
Perhaps if the story had provided some of the context of the report, the claims would be more comprehensible.
"The February report from the Pentagon’s chief testing office is based on trial run at the U.S. military’s Eglin Air Force Base in Florida from September to November of last year"...."The testing, which was supposed to determine whether aircraft the U.S. had already bought from Lockheed Martin were good enough to start training U.S. fighter pilots..."

The context seems pretty clear to me; I don't think that's the comprehension problem.

Now, those comments did come from the actual USAF fighter pilots flying the aircraft. Your expertise and personal involvement with the F-35 programme, which provides you the credibility to dismiss their views would be ?? 

......ri-iiight


[back on ignore]
 
Did the F22 have this much trouble?

The complaints from the pilots flying the plane seem pretty significant.
 
Journeyman said:
The context seems pretty clear to me; I don't think that's the comprehension problem.

Now, those comments did come from the actual USAF fighter pilots flying the aircraft. Your expertise and personal involvement with the F-35 programme, which provides you the credibility to dismiss their views would be ?? 

......ri-iiight


[back on ignore]

So you haven't read the report either?  . . . . ri-iiight

Which makes you perfectly qualified to judge context based  on a two line fragment from a 60 page report.

Maybe if the story had told readers what happened at Eglin, that there were four pilots who, over 46 days, flew the aircraft six times each. And that the aircraft they were flying had only the basic Block 1 software which does not include any mission capabilities and because these were line pilots, not test pilots, they were severe restrictions on the flight regime they had to follow, including:


Descent rates more than 6,000 feet per minute
Airspeed above 550 knots per hour or Mach 0.9
Angle-of-attack (attitude of flight) beyond -5 and +18 degrees
Maneuvering at more than -1 or +5 gs
Take offs or landings in formation;
Flying at night or in weather;
Using real or simulated weapons;
Rapid stick or rudder movements;
Air-to-air or air-to-ground tracking maneuvers;
Refueling in the air;
Flying within 25 miles of lightning;
Use of electronic countermeasures;
Use of anti-jamming, secure communications, or datalink systems;
Electro-optical targeting;
Using the Distributed Aperture System of sensors to detect targets or threats;
Using the Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Interrogator;
Using the helmet mounted display system as a "primary reference;"
Use of air-to-air or air-to-ground radar modes for electronic attack, sea search, ground-moving targets or close-in air combat modes.

Pretty good report.  You should read it.  And read what the far more experienced test pilots with far more flight time on the F-35 have to say. And what USAF General Bogdan had to say to the pilot who made the "gunned" comment.

Context.  It really does matter and really can't be provided in a two line quip.

If you need help finding the report using the interweb thingy, help can be provided.
 
Journeyman said:
Your expertise and personal involvement with the F-35 programme, which provides you the credibility to dismiss their views would be ?? 
Haletown said:
:crickets:
Thank you for reaffirming.



To the people who PM'd, saying he'd responded to my post
Thank you, but if he'd contributed anything of value or interest, he likely wouldn't be on ignore.  At least the Ren to his Stimpy, HB Pencil, comes across as informed and relevant, rather than as some desperately shrill cheerleader.  Seriously -- not interested.
 
Journeyman said:
To the people who PM'd, saying he'd responded to my post
Thank you, but if he'd contributed anything of value or interest, he likely wouldn't be on ignore.  At least the Ren to his Stimpy, HB Pencil, comes across as informed and relevant, rather than as some desperately shrill cheerleader.  Seriously -- not interested.

Look, I have not gone out and simply insulted people (though I have acted a bit too hotly during one exchange), so I'd appreciate it that you extend me the same courtesy.

Its also bothersome that you're just lumping me in as a "cheerleader." As I've said before, I do try to be impartial and analytical as part of my work and personal outlook. It is my central interest that we get the right equipment to the military, that is on time, on budget and can be sustainably resourced. Flat out, I believe the government of Canada's procurement system requires significant reform, due to its disastrous handling of a number of programs.  I've said that publicly in a number of instances. Without a doubt the biggest disaster is the Cyclone, yet it barely registers a footnote in coverage. The National shipbuilding strategy, once touted as a model of acquisition over the bad F-35, is already looking like its over-budget without a single steel panel being cut. These programs had different issues. ADM Mat completely underestimated the risk of what Sikorsky wanted to do... stripping the aircraft down and rebuilding it from the ground up with custom built systems. NSS seems to have done something similar, but with the  added problem of skimping on funding. The problems are chronic and serious... and they won't be addressed by many of the reforms being currently debated like a defence material organization.

In the case of the F-35, I argue the criticism leveled has largely missed the reality in order to sensationalize a story. I've worked over a decade in procurement, and the vast majority of the press does not understand even the basic features of the system, much less the significantly more complex JSF.  I actually believe the best part of Canada's management of the F-35 is that we don't manage the F-35, we signed up to an agreement and the US does the rest. Its critical to understand that the JSF is absolutely critical for the US Armed services, which is why so much effort has been expended to correct its issues and drive prices down. Most other programs would not have survived a Nunn McCurdy Breach of this type and gotten to this stage without a single planned reduction of aircraft.

And absolutely the F-35 has had problems. It was really in trouble around 2008~2010. The government should not have made its announcement in June 2010... it was an ill-conceived photo-op that did far more damage to the program than its benefit. However around 2011 the reform efforts of Venlet and others were starting to take hold. Out of station reworks started dropping, software was delivered on time, testing points started being met and cost overages started declining. Their significance are not well understood by people in Canada. Instead at the same time the program actually made progress, the criticisms in Canada started ramping up.


Does that mean the program is going swimmingly now? Of course not. I'm still wondering about mission availablity, supportability and the operational costs. There are figures all around the place on the program, which give contradictory answers. Based on my research the US Gov figures should go down significantly, but I don't know if it will ever reach legacy costs. Then again it might not matter.

I don't think there is better proof of the fact that the program is moving in the right direction than last month's GAO report. I've read hundreds of them over the years... this is one of the most positive I've ever read:

Overall, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is now moving in the right
direction after a long, expensive, and arduous learning process. It still has
tremendous challenges ahead. The program must fully validate design
and operational performance against warfighter requirements, while, at
the same time, making the system affordable so that the United States
and partners can acquire new capabilities in the quantity needed and can
then sustain the force over its life cycle. Recent restructuring actions have
improved the F-35’s prospects for success, albeit at greater costs and
further delays. Many of the restructuring actions—more time and
resources for development flight testing, reduced annual procurements,
the recognition of concurrency risks, independent cost and software
assessments, and others—are responsive to our past recommendations.
Recent management initiatives, including the schedule risk analysis and
the software assessment, also respond to prior recommendations. As a
result, we are not making new recommendations in this report. DOD and
the contractor now need to demonstrate that the F-35 program can
effectively perform against cost and schedule targets in the new baseline
and deliver on promises. Until then, it will continue to be difficult for the
United States and international partners to confidently plan, prioritize, and
budget for the future; retire aging aircraft; and establish basing plans with
a support infrastructure. Achieving affordability in annual funding
requirements, aircraft unit prices, and life-cycle operating and support
costs will in large part determine how many aircraft the warfighter can
ultimately acquire, sustain, and have available for combat.









 
Journeyman said:
Thank you for reaffirming.



To the people who PM'd, saying he'd responded to my post
Thank you, but if he'd contributed anything of value or interest, he likely wouldn't be on ignore.  At least the Ren to his Stimpy, HB Pencil, comes across as informed and relevant, rather than as some desperately shrill cheerleader.  Seriously -- not interested.

So I take it you do not plan to read the report. 

Your dime, your time.
 
let's stop the pissing contest and stay on topic
 
Journeyman said:
At least the Ren to his Stimpy, HB Pencil, comes across as informed and relevant, rather than as some desperately shrill cheerleader.

Hey, I thought I was the one with the pom poms?  :P

In all seriousness, the report cited above could have been written about any fighter platform during any stage of their development.

By the time all the cards are on the table and the purchase has to be made, the F-35 will be chosen simply because it is the best long term and technologically advanced option that is available.

Will detractors say otherwise? Sure.  Will journalists who dislike the Conservative government make unfounded claims that this is the wrong plane for Canada? Sure.  Did the Conservative government seriously mess up this procurement? Sure.

Once again, though, at the end of the day, the F-35 is the right choice for this country's needs.
 
The F-35, today, does not meet Canada's statement of requirements.

That is a fact.

Thus, following our normal procurement rules, it would be disqualified from the competition.

If, on the other hand, we're changing the rules, we should have been upfront from the beginning that we are buying an experimental, developmental aircraft that may not meet the specification.
 
I'm sorry, how doesn't it meet Canada's statement of requirements? I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to.
 
HB_Pencil said:
I'm sorry, how doesn't it meet Canada's statement of requirements? I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to.

*SARCASM*  Oh, you know...the one that says "Must meet with approval of internet folks."  *SARCASM*

Seriously....the plane won't be in Canadian hands for another 7 years and you're complaining already about what it can't do before they even enter our service?  With more than a few years of testing left in them?

I always wonder why this thread keeps coming back to life....lol

Here's the link about what it's expected to do - if you have time, read it all.

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/questevalfin-finquesteval-eng.html
 
dapaterson said:
If, on the other hand, we're changing the rules, we should have been upfront from the beginning that we are buying an experimental, developmental aircraft that may not meet the specification.

If memory serves me right, from day 1 Canada invested xxx dollars towards the development of a fifth generation aircraft. That has never been in dispute, and that was under the Liberals.

The dispute is over whether Canada would buy it, and for how much and how many, plus a whole lot of stuff being offset....
 
Back
Top