Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Mr. Palmer, an ardent critic of the JSF, refers to subscription articles on his blog that flesh out recent issues with F-35. I don't have subs to either service, so I cannot verify what has been written. However, here are some issues to follow over the course of the next few months, paraphrased :

- The fuel dumping process on the F-35 unacceptable because it leaves fuel on the skin surface of the F-35.

- The tail hook on the carrier variant failed all of its tests and needs a redesign, possibly negatively impacting radar signature.

- The reliability of the integrated power pack (IPP) is very low.

- The helmet display continues to be problematic.

- An unspecified classified issue.

- The Secretary of the Air Force has confirmed that there are still "outstanding risks associated with the Joint Strike Fighter flight training."

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com/2011 ... -f-35.html

F-16.net Sponsor

Using subscription sources (that are not reported anywhere else) is akin to using an unnamed source.

Typical ELP, first class effort .... "an unspecified, classified issue" reported by an "unspecified source". LMAO

Next it will be....

"A nameless person with unknown links with some program, said something happened with an F-35 sometime. This is a clear sign of imminent failure for the F-35 program"

The guy's a hack, no idea why people subscribe to such trash. Seems more like an attention grab than an actual attempt at objective reporting.

It could be worse. It could be an LM press release.

Or this.

http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/06/mccai ... -the-past/

You see.

Nothing to worry about. Laughing

Although there is this:

http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk ... inter.html

Funny how none of those two links said anything doom & gloom like your previous link.

After Mr. Palmer is done complaining he can "biggy size" my fries. Thank You very much Mr. Palmer for your two cents.

alloycowboy wrote:

After Mr. Palmer is done complaining he can "biggy size" my fries. Thank You very much Mr. Palmer for your two cents.

No. Thank you and the cheerleader squad.

ELP is an EDITOR here now? What?

spazsinbad wrote:

ELP is an EDITOR here now? What?

He's been an editor for a while now. Considering his opposition to all things F-35, I think he's done a commendable job of letting people have their say, in true, old fashioned American democracy tradition; which is more than can be said for many websites.

maus92 wrote:

Mr. Palmer, an ardent critic of the JSF, refers to subscription articles on his blog that flesh out recent issues with F-35. I don't have subs to either service, so I cannot verify what has been written. However, here are some issues to follow over the course of the next few months, paraphrased :

- The fuel dumping process on the F-35 unacceptable because it leaves fuel on the skin surface of the F-35.

- The tail hook on the carrier variant failed all of its tests and needs a redesign, possibly negatively impacting radar signature.

- The reliability of the integrated power pack (IPP) is very low.

- The helmet display continues to be problematic.

- An unspecified classified issue.

- The Secretary of the Air Force has confirmed that there are still "outstanding risks associated with the Joint Strike Fighter flight training."

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com/2011 ... -f-35.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMSHvgaU ... ideo_title Rolling Eyes

I'm surprised that was the worst Palmer could come up with.

Quote:

- The fuel dumping process on the F-35 unacceptable because it leaves fuel on the skin surface of the F-35.

Not sure why that's a big, huge deal. Less than ideal maybe, but a big problem??

Quote:

- The tail hook on the carrier variant failed all of its tests and needs a redesign, possibly negatively impacting radar signature.

Sounds like some mechanical engineers somewhere are going to be reassigned and replaced by a few people who actually know what they're doing.

Quote:

- The reliability of the integrated power pack (IPP) is very low.

- The helmet display continues to be problematic.

These are well known, ongoing problems. Both have plenty of time to be worked out. Not a show stopper, but they need to get fixed.

Quote:

- An unspecified classified issue.

Who knows what to say to that?

Quote:

- The Secretary of the Air Force has confirmed that there are still "outstanding risks associated with the Joint Strike Fighter flight training."

That's a catch-all comment. All he's saying is that problems still exist. He'd be foolish (and lying) not to acknowledge them.

Were it my choice, I would have developed three aircraft, rightly or wrongly. But what we have is the F-35 and it seems to fulfill it's basic goals. I'm not a cheerleader for this aircraft but as a taxpayer and a citizen I want it to succeed. I haven't seen any problem that doesn't seem normal for a new aircraft at this stage of development. Certainly nothing that calls for cancellation, especially with price and factory touch-time on a strong downward curve. As far as I'm concerned, full steam ahead.

stereospace wrote:

Quote:

- The fuel dumping process on the F-35 unacceptable because it leaves fuel on the skin surface of the F-35.

Not sure why that's a big, huge deal. Less than ideal maybe, but a big problem??

Quote:

- The tail hook on the carrier variant failed all of its tests and needs a redesign, possibly negatively impacting radar signature.

Sounds like some mechanical engineers somewhere are going to be reassigned and replaced by a few people who actually know what they're doing.

Quote:

- The reliability of the integrated power pack (IPP) is very low.

- The helmet display continues to be problematic.

These are well known, ongoing problems. Both have plenty of time to be worked out. Not a show stopper, but they need to get fixed.

Quote:

- An unspecified classified issue.

Who knows what to say to that?

Quote:

- The Secretary of the Air Force has confirmed that there are still "outstanding risks associated with the Joint Strike Fighter flight training."

That's a catch-all comment. All he's saying is that problems still exist. He'd be foolish (and lying) not to acknowledge them.

Were it my choice, I would have developed three aircraft, rightly or wrongly. But what we have is the F-35 and it seems to fulfill it's basic goals. I'm not a cheerleader for this aircraft but as a taxpayer and a citizen I want it to succeed. I haven't seen any problem that doesn't seem normal for a new aircraft at this stage of development. Certainly nothing that calls for cancellation, especially with price and factory touch-time on a strong downward curve. As far as I'm concerned, full steam ahead.

The fuel dump issue is, in fact, a huge problem. Fuel is liquid. As is precipitation. Guess what actually shows up on weather radar??
...my point exactly.

As for the classified issue, I'd think B61 trouble, but obviously it is as yet unknown.

The tailhook sounds like a relatively easy fix.

As for the helmet display, set the aircraft up to fly with your normal HGU-55/JHMCS combo for now and integrate the techno-junk when practical

Fuel dump is a non-issue, IMHO. It will be mainly used to get down to landing weight for the B&C. You would not want to use it in combat as a better way to "dump" fuel in combat is go AB. Smile

SpudmanWP wrote:

Fuel dump is a non-issue, IMHO. It will be mainly used to get down to landing weight for the B&C. You would not want to use it in combat as a better way to "dump" fuel in combat is go AB. Smile

I think its a concern... If you're dumping fuel during an emergency, the last thing you want is fuel residue on the exterior of the aircraft before a potential crash.

hb_pencil wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

Fuel dump is a non-issue, IMHO. It will be mainly used to get down to landing weight for the B&C. You would not want to use it in combat as a better way to "dump" fuel in combat is go AB. Smile

I think its a concern... If you're dumping fuel during an emergency, the last thing you want is fuel residue on the exterior of the aircraft before a potential crash.

I can't really speak for the pilots, but as someone who's handled aviation fuel (as a teenage civilian), I'd say that a film of Jet-A (or whatever DoD uses) would be the least of your worries prior to a belly landing. Besides, the slipstream alone would dry off the combustible part, leaving a stinky, oily residue. It wouldn't really be an problem during a crash, but it could lead to maintenance issues (depending on the materials involved) if fuel was dumped prior to a normal landing for some reason.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 issues for the next cycle