Forum: F-35 Lightning II

I am a clear support of the F-22A Raptor. If I had my way we would buy over 600 of the birds, and the Navy would get something like the NATF. Yet I see the need for a "low cost" multi-role successor to the F-16 and F/A-18. And since Harriers nor any other STOVL aircraft are still in production, there is a need to replace the AV-8 as well.

Now perhaps we should have aimed for less commonality between the CTOL/CV and STOVL variants, but either way it makes sense to use common avionics, engines, and other systems.

That said, the F-35 is being assaulted from all angles which is the norm for military programs these days. Yet even taking into account the media's habit of over-exaggeration and inaccurate reporting, it does look like the program is in trouble.

I see the political issues plaguing the program and the matter of expecting the F-35 to do too much, but what I am not hearing is details about technical problems. What are the actual problems that are supposedly leading to huge cost increases and delays? The aircraft was overweight earlier in the program, but what other issues have there been with the aircraft itself since then? What has limited the number of test flights? It is very difficult to get a clear status of the aircraft's development itself between the politics and expectations.

F-16.net Sponsor

LMAggie and others will have more details, but I can say that the main problem in development has been with the shift from hand built to faster production, IIRC.

As far as the capabilities of the F-35 itself, there have not been any problems that were not corrected (software changes, heat issues, etc). These are normal for a test program and should not be considered an indicator of impending doom.

One of the core flaws in the JSF Program from inception was that its existence was based around a pre-conceived 3,000+ to 4,000 'affordable' unit aircraft production schedule; centrally planned/dictated through 2037. The problem of course becomes 'what if the eventual total demand for buys only amount to half that figure, with less demand front-end'?

Oh... the price will significantly go up, also threatening the global industrial network? Because only 125 total orders for a given year come in, instead of the expected 240, the program cannot be economically viable, or perceived as sustainable?? So then it becomes a sort of blackmail to govts in play, especially US Congress... i.e., 'if you don't stick to the pre-planned schedule, albeit delayed and now higher in costs of course, then basically our national defense is at jeopardy??'

That is (arguably) no way to run a credible, defense prioritized fighter recapitalization plan. Although, in all fairness, the Program was influenced and formulated in the low 'threat matrix' days of the late 90s economic super bubble, where everything was going ballistic and bust was not in any sort of paradigm.

geogen,

Honestly, what you have just mentioned doesn't sound like a "technical" problem. What you just mentioned though looks like it is definitely a problem, but one in the economic, political, financial, and/or managerial aspect. I think the weight issue was a technical problem, but has been solved. The naval variant had a technical problem with it's structure related to carrier landings. I believe a solution has already been implemented for that one.

Maybe lampshade wants problems narrowed down based on systems like pneudraulic, electrical, avionics, flight controls, weapons systems, etc.

For instance, does the d@mn thing start up? If yes, does it start up every time; is it reliable? If the answer is no, then why not? Is it the propulsion system, fuel system, electrical system, pneumatics, hydraulics? Is it a shotty valve, switch, circuit breaker, or fuel pump?

I think that's what lampshade is looking for. I wish I had some answers.

There was a problem with the C Model's electrical generator not providing enough juice for the airdraft's systems. This required a redesign of the generator as well as its interface to the F135 IIRC. This was a major bug.

The F-35 has major software problems

http://www.f-16.net/news_article3635.html

imispgh wrote:

The F-35 has major software problems

http://www.f-16.net/news_article3635.html

I never worked software for the F-35 but on other programs, we did not base our software performance on lawsuits. No one would believe the complexities involved in testing software for military use. Unlike Microsoft, we do not send the program out for the users to test and debug.
fisk

what i see as "wrong" is that in the beginning, F-22 and F-35 were developed together to meed different requirements - F-22 as a air dominance fighter and F-35 as a strike aircraft. Everybody stated F-35 can't supplement F-22 in its role, and F-22 cant supplement F-35 in its role. but now, even if nothing was changed in requirements, everybody in pentagon keeps saying F-35 could supplement F-22 and replace F-15C in its air dominance role... is it so? I'm sure F-35 is fine against 4.gen aircraft, but as we all see, Russia is developing 5.gen aircraft, and so does China. Are you so sure, F-35 will be good enough against them?

What's wrong? Only that we lowballed the price estimates.

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

fiskerwad wrote:

imispgh wrote:

The F-35 has major software problems

http://www.f-16.net/news_article3635.html

I never worked software for the F-35 but on other programs, we did not base our software performance on lawsuits. No one would believe the complexities involved in testing software for military use. Unlike Microsoft, we do not send the program out for the users to test and debug.
fisk

Ha! Good point. "Before pulling the eject handle would you like to submit this error report to Lockheed Martin?"

Some here are mixing up terms.

Air Dominance (aka Air Supremacy) IS NOT Air Superiority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_dominance

Guysmiley wrote:

fiskerwad wrote:

imispgh wrote:

The F-35 has major software problems

http://www.f-16.net/news_article3635.html

I never worked software for the F-35 but on other programs, we did not base our software performance on lawsuits. No one would believe the complexities involved in testing software for military use. Unlike Microsoft, we do not send the program out for the users to test and debug.
fisk

Ha! Good point. "Before pulling the eject handle would you like to submit this error report to Lockheed Martin?"

Did you read the FCA? The suit states Lockheed abandon it's own SW architecture safety and quality standards, created and unsafe architecture and code and lied to the government and said they did meet the standards. If you are going to push back that's fine but read the information and pusb back on point not with some general 30,000ft comment that looks like something but is really a strawman.

Address SEER 1 and the other specifc points please.

"The F-35 has major software problems "

because

"The suit states Lockheed abandon it's own SW architecture safety and quality standards, created and unsafe architecture and code and lied to the government and said they did meet the standards."

So, IF you believe the lawsuit, THEN the F-35 has major software problems.
OK.
fisk

being within, on USG MS side for a long time, the one thing that p!sses me off is the SWAT we went through and MS didn't really take that big a hit. And we are STILL way to immature, MS BLOCK 3.0 SHOULD BE FLAT, NOT JUST STARTING TO GET 1.0 INTO LABS. LM MS had 18 months to get it right and we still are struggling.

But it is what it is, I have a jet that's going to fly real soon. And i'm excited to start flight testing.

HURRAY FOR A QUESTION NOT ABOUT LO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If anyone here were to know what has gone wrong with the F-35, and they were to violate confidentiality, they'd be locked up for TREASON.

Hence, no one here may answer your question.

What is wrong with the F-35 is everything. Its not an air superiority fighter; plain and not so simple. With a scant 180 airframes of the -22, and the new gen of Sukhoi rolling out, keeping the geopolitcal situation out of the question, the USAF is in deep crap.

Everyone thought the T-50 was going to be a utility tool of an airplane like the -35. Nope! Its an air superiority fighter and has passive sensors and stealth to be able to pick off our 'stealth' fighters. Certainly that's true with regards to the -35 as it lacks long distance IR missiles and lacks supercruise to wield them as effectively as the new Sukhoi. The -22 even without passive IR, there may be a few tricks up the magicians sleeve regarding whiz-bang-electronics. But only 180 airframes.... barely even a silver bullet force.

With regards to PHYISICAL performace, speed, TTW, alt, range, and all that other stuff, the -35 is at the disadvantage compared to the T-50. The -35 is a Swiss Army knife, and the T-50 is a katana.

What's wrong with the -35 is what was wrong with it when it was begun under the Clinton administration. The requirements were drawn up for a Jeep, and not a Formula One... The rest of the world is going for pure fighters, and the US is now for the first time in my life actually ad purposefully fielding garbage.

Much like the 1970s when the US went from making the best cars on the road to overnight retooling and producing the biggest hunks of junk, now so is that scenario happening with air superiority.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

what has actually gone wrong with the F-35?