F-35B/C Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)

[Flying Toaster]

Interesting article highlighting some of the serious technical issues they've been having-

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:bcb29d8f-6a85-40c5-8f1d-c84d20afe997

FOUO source for the article that found its way online. It's a very informative (albeit alarming) read if you have the time.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/274217/dod-quick-look-ahern-report.pdf

 

[Brett327]

Interesting. I don't know how typical having these kinds of issues is, particularly after LRIP, but it doesn't seem good.

Brett

 

[Flash]

Interesting article highlighting some of the serious technical issues they've been having-

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:bcb29d8f-6a85-40c5-8f1d-c84d20afe997

FOUO source for the article that found its way online. It's a very informative (albeit alarming) read if you have the time.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/274217/dod-quick-look-ahern-report.pdf

It is a bit disconcerting but coming from Bill Sweetman I am a little bit wary on how it is balanced. I don't really have anything against or for the JSF but Mr. Sweetman for some time has been a pretty severe critic of the program to the point that he was pulled off reporting on it for a little while by Aviation Week. And it is a blog posting and not an article, the distinction might be a fine one but articles usually have to go through the editorial process while blog postings are more unfiltered.

All that said the hope that the JSF would make it through testing with much less in the way of issues seems to be a forlorn hope and at the same time getting it into production concurrent with the testing program doesn't seem to have been the brightest of decisions.

If you can wade through the comments, some are pretty juvenile, you can find severe critics of the programs as well as cheerleaders but there is also a test pilot at Pax who posts occasionally too (wjmb75, posts on the second page) and he has some good insight though 'looser lips' than I would have figured for someone posting on a public forum in his capacity, he mentioned the 'hook problem a few weeks ago.

 

[Wingnut172N]

Interesting article highlighting some of the serious technical issues they've been having-

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:bcb29d8f-6a85-40c5-8f1d-c84d20afe997

FOUO source for the article that found its way online. It's a very informative (albeit alarming) read if you have the time.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/274217/dod-quick-look-ahern-report.pdf

This thing might reach the fleet about the same time I get FAM-1...

 

[Flying Toaster]

It is a bit disconcerting but coming from Bill Sweetman I am a little bit wary on how it is balanced. I don't really have anything against or for the JSF but Mr. Sweetman for some time has been a pretty severe critic of the program to the point that he was pulled off reporting on it for a little while by Aviation Week. And it is a blog posting and not an article, the distinction might be a fine one but articles usually have to go through the editorial process while blog postings are more unfiltered.

All that said the hope that the JSF would make it through testing with much less in the way of issues seems to be a forlorn hope and at the same time getting it into production concurrent with the testing program doesn't seem to have been the brightest of decisions.

If you can wade through the comments, some are pretty juvenile, you can find severe critics of the programs as well as cheerleaders but there is also a test pilot at Pax who posts occasionally too (wjmb75, posts on the second page) and he has some good insight though 'looser lips' than I would have figured for someone posting on a public forum in his capacity, he mentioned the 'hook problem a few weeks ago.

I appreciate the lecture on the differences between a blog and an article... but if you got over the semantics of a quickly typed post and read the source, you'd see it's pretty much just a summary of an independently written and researched report. Obviously reading the original is better and leaves less room for journalistic bias, except I figured most people on here don't have 30+ minutes to read the entire thing.

 

[Flash]

I appreciate the lecture on the differences between a blog and an article... but if you got over the semantics of a quickly typed post and read the source, you'd realize it's pretty much just a summary of an independent report. Obviously reading the original is better and leaves less room for journalistic bias, except I figured most people on here don't have 30+ minutes to read the entire thing.

True, didn't mean to shoot arrows at your post but point out the bias that Bill Sweetman has shown over the years to the JSF. While some of their criticisms are valid there has been a group of folks like Bill Sweetman along with a few others that seem to have a real axe to grind when it comes to the JSF, which is why I am a bit wary when I first look at their reporting.

Looking at the report itself it is worrisome to a degree, but we are still in the testing phase and stuff like this crops up. I think it was a mistake to assume that testing would go a lot better than it has for an aircraft before it and to start production while testing was still going on, but that wasn't my decision to make. One key thing to take out of the report on page 8:

"The team identified no fundamental design risks sufficient to preclude further production"

Of course right below it:

"There are five areas where major cosequnce issues have been identified, but the root cause, corrective action or fix effectivity are still in development."

All aircraft programs have design and development issues, let's hope VADM Venlet can steer the JSF through these without getting grounded.

 

[Flying Toaster]

From what I can gather, the problem they are running into more than anything specific is with the "initial production while testing" methodology. Once they identify a problem, which is understandable and expected during testing, they have to ground the fleet while they redesign and fix dozens of other aircraft instead of just a few. I might be able to see that working if it was well sorted, but not while they're still discovering cracks in the airframe from the latest dog and pony show. Refer to the recently posted videos- http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-cracks-stop-vertical-landings-on-some-f-35bs-365059/

Things like this make me scratch my head...

The aircraft are experiencing higher than predicted buffet during flights tests, and tests have not yet reached the areas of highest predicted buffet loads (above 20 degrees angle of attack).

I don't know anything about aeronautical engineering, but I have to imagine that might have been something worth testing about a decade ago... you know, before staking the future of the western worlds air superiority on it. Same with weapons release, the HMD, arresting hook, supersonic flight, fatigue life, etc. It sounds rather conspiratorial, but reading through the testing schedule it seems like whoever set the milestones did it in such a manner that if a "fatal flaw" or major issue was discovered, it would be far too late to turn back.

In other news this apparently hasn't bothered Japan-

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2011/12/13/awx_12_13_2011_p0-405601.xml&headline=Tokyo Chooses F-35, Local Media Report &channel=defense

 

[Pags]

I don't know anything about aeronautical engineering, but I have to imagine that might have been something worth testing about a decade ago... you know, before staking the future of the western worlds air superiority on it. Same with weapons release, the HMD, arresting hook, supersonic flight, fatigue life, etc. It sounds rather conspiratorial, but reading through the testing schedule it seems like whoever set the milestones did it in such a manner that if a "fatal flaw" or major issue was discovered, it would be far too late to turn back.

A lot of this stuff was more than likely tested on computers using methodology like finite element analysis. These flight tests are probably the first time an actual aircraft has been put through actual air in these configurations, which is why you're seeing issues come to light that weren't there a few years ago. It would have been nice to test it 10yrs ago, but there was no way to test any of this on an actual aircraft.

 

[pilot_man]

We do love our Rose colored glasses.

 

[usmarinemike]

We do love our Rose colored glasses.

Mine are starting to irritate me.

 

[boostadikt]

"David Axe at the Wired (12/14) "Danger Room" blog writes that the F-35 program is about to become "a lot pricier" because of "13 different design flaws uncovered in the last two months by a hush-hush panel of five Pentagon experts. It could cost up to a billion dollars to fix the flaws on copies of the jet already in production, to say nothing of those yet to come." Axe adds that on top of this, testing could take longer to complete. The "Quick Look Review" was leaked this past weekend, revealing a "laundry list of flaws," some previously known and others not. According to Axe, there is not a "worse time" for this news because of criticism from the government and Boeing offering to sell improved F-15s and F-18s. Axe predicts "another 'rebaselining,' or restructuring, is likely.""

http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/05/mccain-slams-jsf-calls-program-scandal-and-a-tragedy/
It always surprised me how outspoken McCain was against the JSF, I guess we're really starting to see why.

 

[LFDtoUSMC]

First F-35B arrives at Eglin AFB.

http://www.dvidshub.net/news/82284/marine-corps-welcomes-first-f-35b-aircraft-its-fleet

 

[Brett327]

I like how the article (and many in USMC leadership) say the F-35 is going to replace the EA-6B. Chances of that "option" getting funded are slim to none, but I don't suppose a little wishful thinking ever hurt, right?

Brett

 

[LFDtoUSMC]

As a no-nothing wannabe I have wondered about that. Cost not withstanding, do they (NAVAIR) hope to glean enough knowledges from the Growler program to make the -35 a viable single seat EA platform? For those that do know, is it even possible to make a successful EA single seat platform without over saturating the pilot?

Flame on if this has already been covered or is too close to OPSEC.

 

[helolumpy]

As a no-nothing wannabe I have wondered about that. Cost not withstanding, do they (NAVAIR) hope to glean enough knowledges from the Growler program to make the -35 a viable single seat EA platform? For those that do know, is it even possible to make a successful EA single seat platform without over saturating the pilot?

Flame on if this has already been covered or is too close to OPSEC.

Since the F-18G is a brand new airframe, why would they be looking to replace it with an aircraft that should be being built in the next 5-10 years? By the time the Growler is old enough that it will need to be replaced, Unmanned systems should be more than capable of handling that mission.

I realize that stealth technology is a true panacea, but if the role of the aircraft is to jam electronic transmissions (radar and comms), then I really don't think it's too worried about hiding from those same radars that is is jamming...

Of course, what do I know, I'm only a helo bubba.