Can't turn, Can't climb, Can't run: F35 problems

[mnewbery]

I am putting my hand up as one of the forum members who ignores Fly Tornado (see my signature block). Life really is better when I have a care about the opinions I expose myself to.

 

To quote Bobby Henderson (Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster):

 

The only dogma allowed in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the rejection of dogma

In this thread, there are many items to question and certainly more questions than objective facts. The F-35 development program has become one of the most heavily scrutinised in modern history. This is entirely justified.

 

The Su-35 program does not experience the same heavy scrutiny. This motivates observers (me) to fill in the blanks.

 

Seriously though, linking to a bolting Su-33 and implying "this is an example of high AOA in an Su-27" is inviting derision. I do wonder if the Su-33 in the video trapped and slammed into the carrier deck resulting in a fireball, would that have been made public?

 

Question everything.

 

 

[willedoo]

The way I understand Critical AOA is that it's sustainable. The Su-33 wouldn't be able to sustain that AOA shown over the deck of the Kuznetov for very long.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Just read that the F-35 costs $42,169 per hour to fly (that's USD). Compared to which the Super Hornet costs around $17,000 per hour.

 

 

[M61A1]

Just read that the F-35 costs $42,169 per hour to fly (that's USD). Compared to which the Super Hornet costs around $17,000 per hour.

I can operate my Drifter for around $30.00 an hour....maybe we should get a fleet of those. I bet it will out turn both the Hornet and the F-35. I'm fairly sure it has a low radar cross section too.

As a pusher, it wouldn't be too hard to do an aerial refuel conversion either, that would also make it very easy for the pilot, with what every calibre of weapon they can carry, to get guns on target with approximately 110 degree field of fire from the front cockpit.

 

 

[mnewbery]

Can we do replica Polikarpov Po-2s instead?

 

 

[M61A1]

Can we do replica Polikarpov Po-2s instead?

To what advantage?.....it's more complex, heavier, poor field of view, and operating costs will be much higher.

 

 

[mnewbery]

Oh no. No tactical advantage but they are proven to have low radar signature and two guns. Off topic but the pilots all wore frilly knickers, I hear

 

 

[Marty_d]

the pilots all wore frilly knickers, I hear

Of Drifters??

 

 

[fly_tornado]

OSLO, Norway—As Norway readies to welcome its first F-35s in country in just nine short months, top defense officials here worry Lockheed Martin won’t be ready to support the new fleet.

 

The nation plans to begin operating the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) almost as soon as it arrives on Norwegian soil in November, according to air force officials. But while Lockheed has proved it can successfully deliver aircraft from the production line, the company has yet to show it will have a reliable system in place to support the aircraft on “day two,” says Maj. Gen. Morten Klever, Norway’s program director for F-35.

 

Norway has identified a number of “risk areas,” and is currently working with the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO), Lockheed and engine maker Pratt & Whitney to mitigate those risks, Klever says.

 

“They will start training for initial operating capability immediately and everything needs to be in place for them to do that,” Klever says. “Is the industry ready to support and sustain the aircraft in Norway? There is a risk right now.”

 

Lockheed and the partners are setting up roughly 30 F-35 bases internationally between now and 2020, a massive undertaking, Klever says. In particular, Klever is concerned about Lockheed’s ability on day two to provide the necessary spare parts, equipment and support, while at the same time navigating the specific laws and regulations of Norway and eight other partner countries.

 

“I think Lockheed Martin really needs to step up the work on sustainment,” Klever says. “After all, the partners are expecting a seamless global sustainment solution.”

 

http://aviationweek.com/defense/norway-fears-lockheed-not-ready-support-f-35

 

 

[willedoo]

IOC is one thing, but has anyone heard when the first F-35's will be combat ready? Just curious, as I haven't kept up to date on the programme lately.

 

Cheers, Willie.

 

 

[mnewbery]

http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/multimedia/f-35_program_key_facts_and_milestones_-_march_2016__2_-9-7542.pdf

 

http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/newspapers/raaf/editions/5814/5814.pdf

 

Government initiated a two year deferral in production and Initial Operating Capability (IOC), with aircraft planned to be accepted in July 2019 to achieve IOC in November 2020.

USA are claiming their combat readiness with weapons release in August 2016. What RAAF will do and learn between IOC and FOC is anyone's guess. From what I have read, nobody is talking about a reliable FOC date.

 

 

[willedoo]

The first two here at the end of next year. That should draw a bit of a crowd.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

It looks like the controversial F-35 is holding its own at Red Flag exercise underway at Nellis AFB (or maybe not).

 

As of Feb. 3 the F-35A had achieved a quite impressive score during Red Flag 17-1, the U.S. Air Force’s premier air combat exercise underway at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, that pits “Blue Air” (friendly forces) against “Red Air” (enemy) in an all-out air war featuring air-to-air, air-to-ground, search and rescue, and special forces elements.

 

According to the pilots from the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings at Hill AFB, Utah, who deployed the F-35A Lightning II to the airbase off Las Vegas on Jan. 20 and began flying in the exercise Jan. 23, the type, at its debut in the world’s most realistic and challenging exercise, has achieved a 15:1 kill ratio against the Aggressors, F-16s that replicate the paint schemes, markings and insignia of their near peer adversaries and whose role is to threaten strike packages in the same way a modern enemy would do in a real war.

 

F-35’s kill ratio with Aggressors stands at 15:1 during Red Flag 17-1 (most probably thanks to the supporting F-22…)

 

 

[yampy]

I appears the first two F35's will be at the Avalon show in March . Static only .

 

The first two here at the end of next year. That should draw a bit of a crowd.

[willedoo]

It looks like the controversial F-35 is holding its own at Red Flag exercise underway at Nellis AFB (or maybe not).As of Feb. 3 the F-35A had achieved a quite impressive score during Red Flag 17-1, the U.S. Air Force’s premier air combat exercise underway at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, that pits “Blue Air” (friendly forces) against “Red Air” (enemy) in an all-out air war featuring air-to-air, air-to-ground, search and rescue, and special forces elements.

According to the pilots from the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings at Hill AFB, Utah, who deployed the F-35A Lightning II to the airbase off Las Vegas on Jan. 20 and began flying in the exercise Jan. 23, the type, at its debut in the world’s most realistic and challenging exercise, has achieved a 15:1 kill ratio against the Aggressors, F-16s that replicate the paint schemes, markings and insignia of their near peer adversaries and whose role is to threaten strike packages in the same way a modern enemy would do in a real war.

 

F-35’s kill ratio with Aggressors stands at 15:1 during Red Flag 17-1 (most probably thanks to the supporting F-22…)

Thanks for posting, FT, it's an interesting read.

 

There's been lots of talk of the days of dogfighting being over. Is it possible the future will have less air to air combat. And given the current rapid rate of capability increases in surface to air defences, will the main challenge be to get through these defences and hit targets. Air defence technology won't stand still, so the main role of strike aircraft in the future might be to achieve enough capability to hopefully prevent a deadlock. Just some thoughts.

 

Cheers, Willie.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Those F35s where flying with F22s in support, hence the high kill ratios

 

 

[red750]

Here are a couple of screen snips from the airshow website. Some are marked static only, the F-35A is not, but the notation does say 'expected'.

 

 

 

 

[red750]

[mnewbery]

The F-35 just absolutely slaughtered the competition

 

Bit different to the thread title

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Shame Aus hasn't got F22s to act as air to air interceptors to clear a path to the F35s targets

 

 

[Admin]

It's a shame we just couldn't get more pigs...F111...pure grunt and awefully threatening to look at...ah memories

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Days before taking office, President-elect Donald Trump made two surprise calls to the Air Force general managing the Pentagon’s largest weapons program, the Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 jet.

 

Listening in on one of those calls was Dennis Muilenburg -- the CEO of Lockheed’s chief rival, Boeing Co.

 

 

Dennis Muilenburg.

 

Photographer: Bryan R. Smith/Pool via Bloomberg

 

Trump, who has repeatedly criticized the $379 billion F-35 program as “out of control,” made the highly unusual calls to Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan on Jan. 9 and Jan. 17, according to two people familiar with the matter. Muilenburg, whose company makes a fighter jet Trump has suggested might replace one F-35 model, was in the president-elect’s New York office for a meeting during the second call. He appeared caught off-guard but heard at least Trump’s end of the call, according to the people, who asked to remain anonymous discussing sensitive information.

 

Trump's F-35 Calls Came With a Surprise: Rival CEO Was Listening

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The head of the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) says the outer wings of 32 carrier-based C-models need to be replaced to carry the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder, the aircraft’s primary dogfighting weapon.

 

The U.S. Navy variant experienced an undisclosed amount of oscillation or turbulence during flight trials with the AIM-9X in December 2015, and Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan says aircraft already delivered need to be retrofitted with strengthened wings.

 

“It was discovered the outer, folding portion of the wing has inadequate structural strength to support the loads induced by pylons with AIM-9X missiles during maneuvers that cause buffet,” Bogdan says in written testimony to Congress on Feb. 16.

 

Engineers have already produced an enhanced outer wing design, which is now undergoing flight testing. The issue has impacted the timeline for fielding AIM-9X, which is being rolled out for the Navy in Block 3F. “Once the new design is verified to provide the require strength, the fix will be implemented in production and retrofitted to existing aircraft by swapping existing outer wings with the redesigned ones,” Bogdan writes.

 

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35c-needs-new-outer-wings-carry-aim-9x

 

 

[fly_tornado]

this is crazy, they stopped making the F/A18C in 2000

 

 

 

[fly_tornado]

this adds weight to argument that the USAAF is lowering the standards and expectations for the F35

 

How Often Does The F-35 Need To Refuel?

 

Feb 14, 2017 Lara Seligman | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

 

 

Sgt. Lillian Stephens, USMC

 

A recent, lengthy journey by U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs traveling from Arizona to Japan has sparked a quiet debate within the Pentagon about how often the stealthy fighter needs to refuel during ocean crossings.

 

It took seven days for 10 U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs to fly from Yuma to their new home at Iwakuni, Japan, a flight that on a commercial airliner normally takes less than 24 hr. Many factors contribute to the time it takes a military fighter to get from point A to point B: weather, terrain and pilot fatigue, to name just a few. But on this particular voyage, the U.S. Air Force’s conservative refueling model required the Marine Corps aircraft to refuel with accompanying tankers a grand total of 250 times, a number the Marine Corps’ top aviator says is far too high for an efficient ocean-crossing.

 

“The airplane has got longer legs than an F-18 with drop tanks, so why are we going with the tanker so often? We don’t need to do that,” said Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, Marine Corps commandant for aviation. “We are tanking a lot more than we should, maybe double [what we should.] We could be a lot more efficient than that.”

 

While Davis says the tanking model for refueling the Joint Strike Fighter is “off in an overly conservative manner,” it is ultimately up to the Air Force to set the rules—and the air arm is not budging.