The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 10:38
by spazsinbad
Holy Moly - too much to digest for this hoomanunit: https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/

Thanks goodness - a summary of the troubles here:
The Pentagon is battling the clock to fix serious, unreported F-35 problems
12 Jun 2019 Valerie Insinna

..."The 13 deficiencies include:

• The F-35’s logistics system currently has no way for foreign F-35 operators to keep their secret data from being sent to the United States.

• The spare parts inventory shown by the F-35’s logistics system does not always reflect reality, causing occasional mission cancellations.

• Cabin pressure spikes in the cockpit of the F-35 have been known to cause barotrauma, the word given to extreme ear and sinus pain.

• In very cold conditions — defined as at or near minus 30 degrees Fahrenheit — the F-35 will erroneously report that one of its batteries have failed, sometimes prompting missions to be aborted.

• Supersonic flight in excess of Mach 1.2 can cause structural damage and blistering to the stealth coating of the F-35B and F-35C.

• After doing certain maneuvers, F-35B and F-35C pilots are not always able to completely control the aircraft’s pitch, roll and yaw.

• If the F-35A and F-35B blows a tire upon landing, the impact could also take out both hydraulic lines and pose a loss-of-aircraft risk.

• A “green glow” sometimes appears on the helmet-mounted display, washing out the imagery in the helmet and making it difficult to land the F-35C on an aircraft carrier.

• On nights with little starlight, the night vision camera sometimes displays green striations that make it difficult for all variants to see the horizon or to land on ships.

• The sea search mode of the F-35’s radar only illuminates a small slice of the sea’s surface.

• When the F-35B vertically lands on very hot days, older engines may be unable to produce the required thrust to keep the jet airborne, resulting in a hard landing....

...The list of deficiencies as a whole is in some ways encouraging, the currently serving aviator said, because it looks like the issues are being identified by the engineers and technicians working on the program.

“I think what you see in that document is an airplane that fell behind schedule, that was rushed to get back up to schedule under immense political and industry pressure. They had a lot of next-gen[eration] technologies all at once, and they’re working through what all of that looks like together,” the aviator said.

“I don’t see anything in that document that makes me say: ‘Holy sh--, what did we buy?’ If the questions is, ‘Why does the aircraft have all these problems?’, I don’t know, it may sound trite, but it’s a really f--ing complicated machine.”"

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06 ... -problems/

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 11:32
by quicksilver
Hatchet job in front of the FRP/MY decision. Jet is probably doing too well in OT and the DOT&E weenies needed something to whine about, so they leak a Cat 1 DR list. Few in the public domain understand ‘deficiencies’ in a test context because they tend to understand jets like they understand cars; my wife in the kitchen — “...why would we buy something with ‘deficiencies’...?” DefNews editor needs some click hits so he or she tags the story with ‘previously unreported.’ Unreported to whom? The items made the DR list for bleeps sake.

Reminder: some DRs are never resolved. There are fighters flying around in service today after decades in service with still-unresolved DRs. I’m surprised some of the F-35 list are CAT 1s — eg the sea search mode. And, stealth coating stuff? Sounds like the tailplane heating when you spend lotsa time in max AB.

New aircraft always have stuff like this that you have to handle with for a while. Anyone who has flown new designs in the fleet early in the their design life knows this because they’ve lived it.

Cue POGO hysteria — 3, 2, 1...

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 13:07
by marsavian
More detail on the more serious problems.

Supersonic speeds could cause big problems for the F-35′s stealth coating

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06 ... h-coating/

Both deficiencies were first observed in late 2011 following flutter tests where the F-35B and F-35C both flew at speeds of Mach 1.3 and Mach 1.4. During a post-flight inspection in November 2011, it was discovered the F-35B sustained “bubbling [and] blistering” of the stealth coating on both the right and left sides of the horizontal tail and the tail boom.

During similar tests of the F-35C in December 2011, “thermal damage” that compromised the structural integrity of the inboard horizontal tail and tail boom were apparent.

Vice Adm. Mat Winter, who leads the F-35 program on behalf of the Pentagon, told Defense News that the department has taken steps to mitigate the problem with an improved spray-on coating, but added that the government will not completely fix it — instead accepting additional risk.

As justification for the decision, Winter noted that the issue was documented while the jet was flying at the very edge of its flight envelope. He also said the phenomenon only occurred once for both the B and C models, despite numerous attempts to replicate the conditions that caused the problem.

“We have put into place what we believe are the appropriate technical fix to ensure that our F-35Cs have the full envelope and capability to do the high-speed mission, if needed. That’s where we are. Right now, our United States Navy and Marine Corps flying the sea agree with that,” he said.

The new coating, which was introduced in Lot 8, allows the jet to withstand hotter temperatures caused by the afterburner, the documents stated. Winter characterized the material as able to withstand “what we call the thermal shock wave,” but declined to specify how the coating works or how much protection it provides.

“It may be some future advanced materials that can withstand the pressure and the temperature,” Winter said. “Then we see that, and we go, ‘Hey, look, we've got this on the book,’ [and] we do a test check to see if that new material solves that problem.”

The Defense Department has also instituted time limits on the number of seconds the F-35B and F-35C can fly at speeds in excess of Mach 1.2 while at full afterburner.

However, those restrictions are somewhat complicated, and it is unclear how pilots are expected to monitor their compliance to the limits while in flight.

For example, an F-35C can only fly at Mach 1.3 in afterburner for 50 cumulative seconds, meaning that a pilot cannot clock 50 seconds at that speed, slow down for a couple seconds and then speed back up. However, the time requirements reset after the pilot operates at military power — an engine power setting that allows for less speed and thrust than afterburner — for a duration of three minutes.

The F-35B can fly for 80 cumulative seconds at Mach 1.2 or 40 seconds at Mach 1.3 without risking damage.

But for both the C and B models, flying at Mach 1.3 over the specified time limits poses the risk of inducing structural damage to the aircraft’s horizontal stabilizer.

It is infeasible for the Navy or Marine Corps to operate the F-35 against a near-peer threat under such restrictions, the documents acknowledge.

“Pilot observed timers are not practical/observable in operationally relevant scenarios,” one document read. Another document said that “pilots will be unable to comply with time limit in many cases due to high mission workload, resulting in lost missions due to aircraft damage.”

And when those timer violations occur, they will result in “degradation of [stealth], damage to [communications, navigation and identification] antennas, and/or significant [horizontal tail damage],” one document explained.




F-35B/C have oscillation problems when above 20 degree AOA but software fixes coming ...

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden- ... s-erratic/


So why didn't the F-35A suffer from either of these problems ?


More on the cabin pressure/blown tyre issues.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06 ... ting-pain/

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden- ... -failures/

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 13:12
by quicksilver
It gets above those Mach numbers more easily.

In training, the reality about supersonic flight is you don’t spend much time above those numbers anyway because you don’t have the airspace (as in you will run out of the area or you have to turn around w a turn radius the size of New Jersey).

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 13:24
by mixelflick
This was my favorite..

After doing certain maneuvers, F-35B and F-35C pilots are not always able to completely control the aircraft’s pitch, roll and yaw

Um... that's pretty important, don't you think? Flight control software? Or a structural issue??

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 13:56
by marsavian

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 13:59
by quicksilver
mixelflick wrote:This was my favorite..

After doing certain maneuvers, F-35B and F-35C pilots are not always able to completely control the aircraft’s pitch, roll and yaw

Um... that's pretty important, don't you think? Flight control software? Or a structural issue??


What exactly does ‘not completely control’ mean? In what context did this occur in flight test? That’s journalist language, not flight test language.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 14:03
by quicksilver
marsavian wrote:Software fixes coming.

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden- ... s-erratic/


‘Modal confusion’

...that would get someone a new call sign if ever used in a fleet ready room. Something like, “MC” — modally confused.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 14:31
by quicksilver
Finally, somebody is talking about how ‘deficiencies’ are defined.

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden- ... hortfalls/

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 15:59
by krieger22
The authors are all claiming that this was done in the interest of "transparency", but yeah, it's a hatchet job whether they meant to or not.

Lots of material for the second coming of the basement dweller stupidity thread, but I don't want to monopolize submissions there now :wink:

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 16:18
by SpudmanWP
The heat blistering the stealth coatings has only happened once on the F-35B/C and more importantly, they have not been able to replicate it even after trying multiple times.

The biggest issue I have with this hit-piece is that they keep throwing around "unreported" which is a demonstrable lie.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 16:25
by marsavian
The heat blistering on the stealth coating is not the most important issue especially as they changed the coating since, it is the damage to the F-35C tail structure and its antennas which implies a design fault. LMT has had 8 years to find the root issue, instead the solution is high Mach in both the F-35B and F-35C is time restricted which is a band-aid fix.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 17:59
by quicksilver
marsavian wrote:The heat blistering on the stealth coating is not the most important issue especially as they changed the coating since, it is the damage to the F-35C tail structure and its antennas which implies a design fault. LMT has had 8 years to find the root issue, instead the solution is high Mach in both the F-35B and F-35C is time restricted which is a band-aid fix.


So, what is your solution?

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 18:11
by marsavian
LMT have to eventually fix it, free of charge. The F-35 program will give them decades of profit, the buyers of the F-35C product, USN, are owed a product built to full product specification.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 18:17
by zerion
LMT response

Lockheed Martin Comments on Defense News Reporting
Lockheed Martin // June 12, 2019

Below, please find comments from Lockheed Martin on improvements underway addressing the items identified in Defense News’ June 12 article series.

Overall Comment

The F-35s today are meeting or exceeding performance specifications and delivering unprecedented capability and safety compared to legacy fighter aircraft. The feedback we receive from F-35 pilots is exceptional – and any pilot who has flown a legacy jet consistently relays back that if they are being sent in to harm’s way – they want the F-35, every time.

These issues are important to address, and each is well understood, already resolved or on a near term path to resolution. We’ve worked collaboratively with our customers and we are fully confident in the F-35’s performance and the solutions in place to address each of the items identified...

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lockhee ... -reporting

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 18:32
by quicksilver
marsavian wrote:LMT have to eventually fix it, free of charge. The F-35 program will give them decades of profit, the buyers of the F-35C product, USN, are owed a product built to full product specification.


If one reads what VADM Winter says, that sounds like what they’re doing.

However, just so you don’t live a life of disappointment, aircraft (take your pick) are rarely “built to full product specification.”

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 18:59
by ricnunes
zerion wrote:LMT response

Lockheed Martin Comments on Defense News Reporting
Lockheed Martin // June 12, 2019

Below, please find comments from Lockheed Martin on improvements underway addressing the items identified in Defense News’ June 12 article series.

Overall Comment

The F-35s today are meeting or exceeding performance specifications and delivering unprecedented capability and safety compared to legacy fighter aircraft. The feedback we receive from F-35 pilots is exceptional – and any pilot who has flown a legacy jet consistently relays back that if they are being sent in to harm’s way – they want the F-35, every time.

These issues are important to address, and each is well understood, already resolved or on a near term path to resolution. We’ve worked collaboratively with our customers and we are fully confident in the F-35’s performance and the solutions in place to address each of the items identified...

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lockhee ... -reporting


Thanks Zerion! :thumb:

So the majority of those "F-35 issues" are no-issues at all (i.e. already solved) and the minority of those "issues" are on the verge of being solved.

Regarding the "F-35B and F-35C Horizontal Tail Durability at Sustained Supersonic Flight" "issue":

The F-35B and C deliver on all performance requirements. The potential for tailboom or horizontal tail damage during prolonged supersonic speeds was found in the highest extremes of flight testing conditions that are unlikely replicated in operational scenarios. In fact, there have been no cases of this issue occurring in the operational fleet. Additionally, this is not identified as a safety of flight concern.

We implemented a change to the coatings on the horizontal tails and tail boom beginning in Lot 8 that increases durability and resolves this concern. This update allows the F-35B and C to deliver on all performance requirements with no tail boom or horizontal tail damage concerns.


So this was a one-off event which only happened during an extreme test and didn't repeat and never occurred in operational aircraft. Moreover, this issue was supposedly solved on Lot 8 aircraft and afterwards.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 19:48
by magitsu
Meanwhile in DC:

Trump arranged a special flyover of F-35 to Polish president Duda.
https://twitter.com/p_zuchowski/status/ ... 8753049600

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 01:05
by usnvo
marsavian wrote:LMT have to eventually fix it, free of charge. The F-35 program will give them decades of profit, the buyers of the F-35C product, USN, are owed a product built to full product specification.


Nice cop-out.

The Navy has been unable to replicate the issue despite multiple attempts. That indicates it is probably caused by something that was either unique to the test aircraft, the day of the test, or a variable that isn't known (for instance a combination of flight testing leading up to the flight that reported the issue that will never be duplicated again). So what exactly is the problem that they are going to fix? And, since they have changed the coatings and there have been no further incidents, how do you know if it is still a problem? Even then, given that they couldn't replicate the issue in testing, how do you prove the new aircraft have fixed the problem? Since it was listed as the outside of the envelope, and the aircraft can attain M1.6, I would guess it is at a fairly low altitude, how often do F-35B/C fly supersonic for extended periods of time on the deck?

But hey, good virtue signalling.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 01:09
by Corsair1963
What a load of BS..... :?


Also, of these minor issues. Anybody want to guess the aircraft in question are early production examples??? :doh:

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 05:02
by taog
According to the statement of LM and JPO, the coating damage was happened during an extreme test, and this phenomenon only occurred once, even they have tried to replicate the same conditions.

It sounds not like a consistent and common problem, but why it still be classified to the category 1 deficiencies ?

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 05:11
by marauder2048
taog wrote:According to the statement of LM and JPO, the coating damage was happened during an extreme test, and this phenomenon only occurred once, even they have tried to replicate the same conditions.

It sounds not like a consistent and common problem, but why it still be classified to the category 1 deficiencies ?



Because JPO's category 1 deficiency definition is much broader than the services.
If the coating damage ever blocked some mission critical test it gets labeled at Cat 1.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 05:22
by Corsair1963
marauder2048 wrote:
taog wrote:According to the statement of LM and JPO, the coating damage was happened during an extreme test, and this phenomenon only occurred once, even they have tried to replicate the same conditions.

It sounds not like a consistent and common problem, but why it still be classified to the category 1 deficiencies ?



Because JPO's category 1 deficiency definition is much broader than the services.
If the coating damage ever blocked some mission critical test it gets labeled at Cat 1.



Honestly, very disappointed in Defense News. As all they did was post sensational negative headlines. Yet, after reading the articles. To find out the titles where very misleading and the issues in general minor....

If, they keep this up. We may find the Defense News on the grocery aisle next to the "National Enquirer" at our local Super Market???
:shock:

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 08:14
by marsavian
This is not a non-issue as F-35B/C now have 40-50s time restrictions at being at Mach 1.3. Maybe the new coating is a complete fix but Vice Adm. Mat Winter when talking about it does not give that impression implying fundamentally it's a thermal materials issue that could be solved further down the line with new composites.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06 ... h-coating/

At extremely high altitudes, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps’ versions of the F-35 jet can only fly at supersonic speeds for short bursts of time before there is a risk of structural damage and loss of stealth capability, a problem that may make it impossible for the Navy’s F-35C to conduct supersonic intercepts.

The Defense Department does not intend to field a fix for the problem, which influences not only the F-35’s airframe and the low-observable coating that keeps it stealthy, but also the myriad antennas located on the back of the plane that are currently vulnerable to damage, according to documents exclusively obtained by Defense News.

The F-35 Joint Program Office has classified the issues for the "B" and "C" models as separate category 1 deficiencies, indicating in one document that the problem presents a challenge to accomplishing one of the key missions of the fighter jet. In this scale, category 1 represents the most serious type of deficiency.

Both deficiencies were first observed in late 2011 following flutter tests where the F-35B and F-35C both flew at speeds of Mach 1.3 and Mach 1.4. During a post-flight inspection in November 2011, it was discovered the F-35B sustained “bubbling [and] blistering” of the stealth coating on both the right and left sides of the horizontal tail and the tail boom.

During similar tests of the F-35C in December 2011, “thermal damage” that compromised the structural integrity of the inboard horizontal tail and tail boom were apparent.

Vice Adm. Mat Winter, who leads the F-35 program on behalf of the Pentagon, told Defense News that the department has taken steps to mitigate the problem with an improved spray-on coating, but added that the government will not completely fix it — instead accepting additional risk.

As justification for the decision, Winter noted that the issue was documented while the jet was flying at the very edge of its flight envelope. He also said the phenomenon only occurred once for both the B and C models, despite numerous attempts to replicate the conditions that caused the problem. “How often do we expect something like that to occur?” he said. “It's very, very small.”

Greg Ulmer, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program head, said there have been no cases of this problem occurring in the operational fleet and that incidents have been limited to the “highest extremes of flight testing conditions that are unlikely replicated in operational scenarios.”

Winter acknowledged that the deficiency could keep the Navy from accomplishing its supersonic intercept mission — as the documents charge — if similar issues were being experienced more widely across the F-35C inventory.

“If you had that performance on all of your fleet, then you would have a problem. That’s not the case,” he said.

“We have put into place what we believe are the appropriate technical fix to ensure that our F-35Cs have the full envelope and capability to do the high-speed mission, if needed. That’s where we are. Right now, our United States Navy and Marine Corps flying the sea agree with that,” he said.

The new coating, which was introduced in Lot 8, allows the jet to withstand hotter temperatures caused by the afterburner, the documents stated. Winter characterized the material as able to withstand “what we call the thermal shock wave,” but declined to specify how the coating works or how much protection it provides.

“It may be some future advanced materials that can withstand the pressure and the temperature,” Winter said. “Then we see that, and we go, ‘Hey, look, we've got this on the book,’ [and] we do a test check to see if that new material solves that problem.”

The Defense Department has also instituted time limits on the number of seconds the F-35B and F-35C can fly at speeds in excess of Mach 1.2 while at full afterburner.


However, those restrictions are somewhat complicated, and it is unclear how pilots are expected to monitor their compliance to the limits while in flight.

For example, an F-35C can only fly at Mach 1.3 in afterburner for 50 cumulative seconds, meaning that a pilot cannot clock 50 seconds at that speed, slow down for a couple seconds and then speed back up. However, the time requirements reset after the pilot operates at military power — an engine power setting that allows for less speed and thrust than afterburner — for a duration of three minutes.

The F-35B can fly for 80 cumulative seconds at Mach 1.2 or 40 seconds at Mach 1.3 without risking damage.

But for both the C and B models, flying at Mach 1.3 over the specified time limits poses the risk of inducing structural damage to the aircraft’s horizontal stabilizer.

It is infeasible for the Navy or Marine Corps to operate the F-35 against a near-peer threat under such restrictions, the documents acknowledge.

“Pilot observed timers are not practical/observable in operationally relevant scenarios,” one document read. Another document said that “pilots will be unable to comply with time limit in many cases due to high mission workload, resulting in lost missions due to aircraft damage.”

And when those timer violations occur, they will result in “degradation of [stealth], damage to [communications, navigation and identification] antennas, and/or significant [horizontal tail damage],” one document explained.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 10:30
by marauder2048
They have restrictions of Mach 1.3 at that part of the envelope.

A complete fix would imply the problem reproduces consistently enough for a fix to be completely validated.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 11:23
by Patriot
But for both the C and B models, flying at Mach 1.3 over the specified time limits poses the risk of inducing structural damage to the aircraft’s horizontal stabilizer.


Shouldnt the A model have the same problem and restrictions and why not? The horizontal stabs are the same for all 3 models.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 12:12
by Dragon029
The horizontal stabs are larger on the F-35C and the nozzle is a little shorter / closer to the fuselage on the B. Most importantly however, the F-35A has notably less transonic / supersonic drag.

Because this is primarily about how long the rear surfaces are exposed to afterburner heat, it seems that the faster acceleration / lower drag has resulted in the A variant not yet experiencing this issue.

Remember too that the B and C issues are deficiencies specifically because they happened once each; without it happening on the A there's no justification to also attach a deficiency (and corresponding restrictions) to it, even if theoretically the F-35A should also suffer damage after sufficiently long use of the afterburner (perhaps 50 seconds at Mach 1.5+ for instance).

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 13:13
by quicksilver
When Def News was bought a few years ago, they let Vago Muradian and others go in favor of ‘reporters’ with far less/zero defense reporting experience; it was about the financials. Hence, we get the reporter line up they/we have now. The modern journalism business model is about ‘speed to market’ but Def News seems to have largely forgotten that for most people who follow defense and aerospace matters, ‘credibility’ still counts. On that count (credibility), they get low marks on this effort and my bet is the acute spike in click hits they likely got will not be sustained.

I’ll check around, but I think some of the confusion may be because the mod that releases a jet from the Mach restriction is an ‘on condition’ change; in other words, it won’t be mod’d unless it is damaged or otherwise out of service for other mods or depot work. The LRIP8 jets (and beyond) come off the prod line with the fix.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 13:43
by spazsinbad
quicksilver wrote:Hatchet job in front of the FRP/MY decision. Jet is probably doing too well in OT and the DOT&E weenies needed something to whine about, so they leak a Cat 1 DR list. Few in the public domain understand ‘deficiencies’ in a test context because they tend to understand jets like they understand cars; my wife in the kitchen — “...why would we buy something with ‘deficiencies’...?” DefNews editor needs some click hits so he or she tags the story with ‘previously unreported.’ Unreported to whom? The items made the DR list for bleeps sake.

Reminder: some DRs are never resolved. There are fighters flying around in service today after decades in service with still-unresolved DRs. I’m surprised some of the F-35 list are CAT 1s — eg the sea search mode. And, stealth coating stuff? Sounds like the tailplane heating when you spend lotsa time in max AB.

New aircraft always have stuff like this that you have to handle with for a while. Anyone who has flown new designs in the fleet early in the their design life knows this because they’ve lived it.

Cue POGO hysteria — 3, 2, 1...

AFM backups 'QS' & yep the 'old news' dump was a bit overwhelming for me (I was seeing 'posted 5 minutes ago' notices).
Lockheed: Reported Deficiencies in F-35 Already Fixed or Being Resolved
12 Jun 2019 John A. Tirpak

"Lockheed Martin took the unusual step June 12 of issuing a point-by-point rebuttal of a press report describing deficiencies with the F-35 family of aircraft. The company claimed that deficiency issues identified in reporting by Defense News on June 12 are each “well understood, already resolved or on a near-term path to resolution.” The company said it has “worked collaboratively with our customers” on the issues and “are fully confident in the F-35’s performance and the solutions in place to address each of the items identified.”

The Defense News stories, timed to coincide with the F-35 CEO meeting in Arlington, Va., collected deficiency reports harvested from internal Joint Program Office and Pentagon documents, and combined these with reporting on other deficiencies identified by Pentagon test organizations. Some of the problems noted had been discussed publicly, and in Government Accountability Office audits, while others had not. The reports largely go back to late 2018 and ​early 2019, when the F-35 had just begun Initial Operational Test and Evaluation, the graduation exercise that will allow it to progress to the next program milestone...." [then more or less the LM PR rebuttal is repeated]

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... olved.aspx

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 17:01
by ricnunes
quicksilver wrote:I’ll check around, but I think some of the confusion may be because the mod that releases a jet from the Mach restriction is an ‘on condition’ change; in other words, it won’t be mod’d unless it is damaged or otherwise out of service for other mods or depot work. The LRIP8 jets (and beyond) come off the prod line with the fix.


Exactly!

By reading the article that spaz posted:
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... olved.aspx

We can read the following:
Defense News asserted that F-35B and C aircraft stealthy control surfaces can delaminate at supersonic speed above Mach 1.2, causing structural damage and affecting flight safety. Lockheed said “the potential” for such an event after prolonged supersonic flight was discovered during test conditions unlikely to be seen in normal operations. However, a “change to the coatings on the horizontal tails and tail boom beginning Lot 8 … increases durability and resolves this concern.”


which can also be read on the LM's rebuttal.
So it seems to me that the issue above (F-35B/C supersonic flight damage to coating/structure) is solved in Lot 8 aircraft and afterwards.
Of course one can argue if pre-Lot 8 aircraft still have this issue but IMO this doesn't matter much since these can be fixed anytime, right? Moreover, the vast majority of F-35's (namelly -Bs and -Cs) will be post Lot-8 anyway...

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 17:40
by quicksilver
And furthermore, this issue is not about generalized ‘structure’ w LO coatings anywhere on the fuselage; it’s about the tail boom and horizontal stab edges aft/near the engine exhaust. ‘Why just B/C?’ answered in posts above by m2048 and the dragon.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 04:51
by usnvo
Since I didn't see it anywhere, and apologize in advance if it was posted somewhere else, here is the response from LMT about the Defense News article as reported by Air Force Magazine.

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... olved.aspx

It is interesting to me that all of these "unreported" issues seem to have been previously reported and are well known, at least to anyone who periodically reads up on it. Just as an example, anyone who reads anything about the F-35C knows the green glow has been identified since at least 2015 and the OLED fix was tested in 2016.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 06:27
by juretrn
I don'tthink the timing of this release is a coincidence. It seems the DoD is trying to grab LM by the balls, especially in regards to spare parts and maintainability.
Some tough love is needed- the program will be stronger for it.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 06:43
by quicksilver
juretrn wrote:I don'tthink the timing of this release is a coincidence. It seems the DoD is trying to grab LM by the balls, especially in regards to spare parts and maintainability.
Some tough love is needed- the program will be stronger for it.


Yeah, that just announced $34B multi-year deal is a real nut-roll...

(And in case you missed it, that’s 34 Bbbbbillion dollars; billion with a capital ‘B’)

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 07:42
by spazsinbad
usnvo wrote:Since I didn't see it anywhere, and apologize in advance if it was posted somewhere else, here is the response from LMT about the Defense News article as reported by Air Force Magazine.

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... olved.aspx

It is interesting to me that all of these "unreported" issues seem to have been previously reported and are well known, at least to anyone who periodically reads up on it. Just as an example, anyone who reads anything about the F-35C knows the green glow has been identified since at least 2015 and the OLED fix was tested in 2016.

I'll be kind. On previous page this thread is the same post: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=55673&p=421741&hilit=dump#p421741

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 07:46
by marauder2048
juretrn wrote:I don'tthink the timing of this release is a coincidence. It seems the DoD is trying to grab LM by the balls, especially in regards to spare parts and maintainability.
Some tough love is needed- the program will be stronger for it.



I guess one big carrot that's looming is the on-again, off-again MYP for Lots 15 -17.
The RFP is either out or will be soon.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 08:31
by marsavian
The most popular UK tabloid, The Sun, has now reported this story with a sensational headline. This is bad PR.


PLANE STUPID RAF’s new £100million F-35 stealth fighter jets can only fly supersonic for short bursts or they’ll ‘crack’, Pentagon warns

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9282274/r ... tagon/amp/

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 08:58
by spazsinbad
marsavian wrote:...This is bad PR....

One may ask: Who organised this PR? It seems 'weenies' or somewhosuch. What GOOD PR and by WHOM do you suggest?

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 10:23
by marsavian
This issue should have been discussed and defused years ago rather then letting tabloids springing it on the world with all their sensationalist interpretations. There has been a lack of transparency on so many F-35 issues so people are forced to scramble to react rather than be proactive and forward in their explanations.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 10:35
by spazsinbad
As some here have pointed out along with other credible news outlets some of this 'unknown' stuff was KNOWN in detail. Perhaps some 'not known' was thought to be not that significant however I myself cannot divine stuff on my own with just the DEFnews interpretations rather than the original documents. In any event most of the issues have been addressed as pointed out by LM & others. You might ask why old glitches were dredged up now. Glitches that are being fixed right now. You can read the responses from those in the know as much as I can. I'll consider teacup storm well stirred - but it's over.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 13:50
by mixelflick
This same crap goes on with almost every new airframe, doesn't matter what it is. Make that goes on with almost every new piece of military hardware..

The F-15's radar broke too often. It was too big, too expensive and too complex to maintain and sortie at a respectable rate. So what happened? Went on to become the most successful air to air platform in history.

Same thing for the M1A1 Abrams. Would never work in the desert. Broke too often, couldn't go far enough. What happened during Desert Storm 1 (and 2, for that matter)? Completely outclassed everything that made the mistake of going up against it.

The F-35 will be no different..

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 14:02
by quicksilver
marsavian wrote:This issue should have been discussed and defused years ago rather then letting tabloids springing it on the world with all their sensationalist interpretations. There has been a lack of transparency on so many F-35 issues so people are forced to scramble to react rather than be proactive and forward in their explanations.


You must have missed it — news media outlets are in the business of making money. They do so in-part by sensationalizing even the normal, routine and mundane. The prestigious Pulitzer Prize is named after Joseph Pulitzer who, with William Randolph Hearst, in the 1890s developed the techniques of “yellow journalism,” which won over readers with “sensationalism, *****, crime and graphic horrors.” Apart from the technology and the ability to now reach global masses, it’s little different. Unless you live in a country where the state essentially owns/controls the media, it’s not gonna change.

“Lack of transparency”?? F-35 is the most routinely audited, monitored and reported-on program in the history of the planet.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 14:15
by marsavian
Has the supersonic thermal issue or the oscillation at moderate AoA for F-35B/C ever been reported before despite being issues of many years standing ? First I have heard of either.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 14:18
by quicksilver
marsavian wrote:Has the supersonic thermal issue or the oscillation at moderate AoA for F-35B/C ever been reported before despite being issues of many years standing ? First I have heard of either.


They were reported to the people in the government who are responsible for resolving such things. Are you on that list?

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 14:21
by marsavian
Proves my point about lack of transparency but maybe I am being unfair and too critical and perhaps all modern military projects are run like that. The point I am making is transparency would force the manufacturer to fix these issues fully and quickly as exports will rely on that because it's hard to keep these issues hidden forever, so proactive transparency rather than scrambling to explain when discovered. Or maybe I am too naive and the project is on such a PR knife edge it can't afford any bad publicity upfront.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 14:31
by quicksilver
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/692307.pdf

There’s the GAO report from last year. And, in the wake of that report there was a flood of ‘me too’ reporting on it by a variety of outlets — even ‘Popular Mechanics.’

Go back through the annual GAO and DOT&E annual reports. Count the number of pages in each successive F-35 section versus any other weapons system. Go to your search engine of choice and search F-16, F-18 or F-15 ‘development problems’ or GAO reports on same.

It doesn’t take much effort to get educated on the reality rather than the ‘popular opinion.’

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 14:41
by quicksilver
“The point I am making is transparency would force the manufacturer to fix these issues fully and quickly.”

There are hundreds of USG employees who go to work in the LM plant every day for the purpose of monitoring Contractor compliance with all of the USG policy, rules and regulations that govern how a weapons system is designed and built, and how contracted dollars are spent toward those ends. Simultaneously, there are thousands of USG employees and service members who go to work every day at various test sites and other locations testing and verifying the performance of what has actually been designed and built — and they do so with access to greater information and with more fidelity than any aircraft program in the history of the planet. Every day.

None of these items are news.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 14:54
by quicksilver
Here’s the link to dote annual reports —

https://www.dote.osd.mil/annual-report/index.html

Go to ‘DOD Programs’ and then ‘F-35’. Take your pick of annual reports.

Anyone claiming ‘lack of transparency’ hasn’t been paying full attention.

From the 2012 report (and I quote) —

“Horizontal tail surfaces are experiencing higher than expected temperatures during sustained high-speed/high-altitude flight, resulting in delamination and scorching of the surface coatings and structure. All variants were restricted from operations outside of a reduced envelope until the test team added instrumentation to the tailbooms to monitor temperatures on the tail surfaces. The program scheduled modification of one flight sciences aircraft of each variant with new skin coatings on the horizontal tail to permit flight testing in the currently restricted part of the high-speed/high-altitude flight envelope. The test team is adding more flight test instrumentation to help quantify the impacts of the tail heating to support necessary design changes. The program scheduled modifications on one aircraft (AF-2) to be completed in early 2013 to allow flight testing of the new skin design on the horizontal tails to proceed.”

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 15:06
by marsavian
Quicksilver, thanks for your research which has added more information about this issue to f-16.net users. :thumb:

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 15:10
by quicksilver
As they say, “...just keepin it real.”

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 15:17
by quicksilver
So everyone...

Let’s circle back around to Defense News’ use of the term, “Hidden Troubles...”

Truth or modern day ‘yellow journalism’...?

Decide for yourself.

In this day and age in particular, it behooves us all to be discerning consumers of ‘news’ and information.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 15:21
by spazsinbad
marsavian wrote:Has the supersonic thermal issue or the oscillation at moderate AoA for F-35B/C ever been reported before despite being issues of many years standing ? First I have heard of either.

The 'thermal issue' has been reported upon years ago now with info somewhere on this forum. There are photos of bits of red tape stuff on affected area of test aircraft IIRC. The oscillations have been referenced in various ways but perhaps not in the same detail as outlined/summarised in a report we have not seen IIRC. Standby to Standby for a reference or 2....

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 15:26
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:
marsavian wrote:Has the supersonic thermal issue or the oscillation at moderate AoA for F-35B/C ever been reported before despite being issues of many years standing ? First I have heard of either.

The 'thermal issue' has been reported upon years ago now with info somewhere on this forum. There are photos of bits of red tape stuff on affected area of test aircraft IIRC. The oscillations have been referenced in various ways but perhaps not in the same detail as outlined/summarised in a report we have not seen IIRC. Standby to Standby for a reference or 2....


Your internet service must be slow today. :wink:

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 15:31
by spazsinbad
quicksilver wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:
marsavian wrote:Has the supersonic thermal issue or the oscillation at moderate AoA for F-35B/C ever been reported before despite being issues of many years standing ? First I have heard of either.

The 'thermal issue' has been reported upon years ago now with info somewhere on this forum. There are photos of bits of red tape stuff on affected area of test aircraft IIRC. The oscillations have been referenced in various ways but perhaps not in the same detail as outlined/summarised in a report we have not seen IIRC. Standby to Standby for a reference or 2....


Your internet service must be slow today. :wink:

You better believe it - NBN stands for Not Believable Now in my area (NBN = National Broadband Network) - no sign of it.

HEHEHEH - I'm uploading a youboob video which slows my internet to concrete drying speed otherwise so I missed all the good stuff previously posted by 'QS' starts here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=55673&p=421853&hilit=skin#p421853 apologies.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2019, 01:32
by smsgtmac
juretrn wrote:I don'tthink the timing of this release is a coincidence. It seems the DoD is trying to grab LM by the balls, especially in regards to spare parts and maintainability.
Some tough love is needed- the program will be stronger for it.


Your suspicions aren't paranoia, but they are misdirected. The timing if the articles is a defensive move by the Faux-Military Reform INdustry in an attempt to shore up their position in the wake of mostly good news coming out about the F-35 lately. The reduced price of the F-35 was anticipated, and POGO just days before rolled out an updated screed on the F-35 by their rather lame point man Dan Grasier (not his all his fault-their points are lame), and from the article itself you can tell it should have been titled "Cub Girl Reporter Discovers How Airplane Sausage is Made: Spoon-fed by POGO".

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2019, 01:42
by usnvo
spazsinbad wrote: I'll be kind. On previous page this thread is the same post: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=55673&p=421741&hilit=dump#p421741


I did say I didn't see it anywhere, I will look harder next time!

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2019, 01:46
by spazsinbad
Searching for key or unique words should find it. Always I have author/title+date on posts. Makes searching much easier.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2019, 11:39
by marsavian
Reading the DoD reports this issue was not finally resolved until 2017.

https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY ... f35jsf.pdf

F-35B Flight Sciences Assessment
- The program plans to complete F-35B flight sciences
testing by January 2018, enabling a military flight release
for the full Block 3F flight envelope in May 2018, but
delays are likely. As of the end of October 2017, the
program had over 500 test points remaining to complete
F-35B flight sciences testing.
- The following discoveries affected F-35B flight sciences
testing:
▪ Excessive heating on the horizontal tail surfaces limited
the time the aircraft could operate in afterburner at a
high Mach number to collect necessary strain load data.
To reach high Mach number test points, the program
designed and installed flight-test-unique horizontal tail
thermal barrier coatings on BF-3.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2019, 12:08
by quicksilver
marsavian wrote:Reading the DoD reports this issue was not finally resolved until 2017.

https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY ... f35jsf.pdf

F-35B Flight Sciences Assessment
- The program plans to complete F-35B flight sciences
testing by January 2018, enabling a military flight release
for the full Block 3F flight envelope in May 2018, but
delays are likely. As of the end of October 2017, the
program had over 500 test points remaining to complete
F-35B flight sciences testing.
- The following discoveries affected F-35B flight sciences
testing:
▪ Excessive heating on the horizontal tail surfaces limited
the time the aircraft could operate in afterburner at a
high Mach number to collect necessary strain load data.
To reach high Mach number test points, the program
designed and installed flight-test-unique horizontal tail
thermal barrier coatings on BF-3.


And so what is your point? Should they have done it quicker? Do you work in aerospace? Do you have a degree in a materials science or advanced composites? What other test points were they pursuing using BF-3? Should they have taken BF-3 out of all the other flight sciences testing just to instrument the horizontal stab sooner? How do you know?

:roll:

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2019, 13:52
by quicksilver
Smac’s observation above is a good reminder that in addition to some very sophisticated science(s), there is lotsa sausage making in aircraft development and developmental flight test. It is very, very complex and difficult stuff (they’re not building Toyotas) and in spite of all we humans know (or better, all we think we know), the ‘unknown’ and the ‘imperfect’ are always present — and it has never been otherwise. However, in the 21st century — the day and age of near ubiquity of information —that makes it (designing etc jets) more political because many use ‘the imperfect’ to exploit lay readers’ unfamiliarity with how it all gets done — design, development, build, test, and problem resolution.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2019, 14:20
by botsing
smsgtmac wrote:from the article itself you can tell it should have been titled "Cub Girl Reporter Discovers How Airplane Sausage is Made: Spoon-fed by POGO".

Amen.

quicksilver wrote:Smac’s observation above is a good reminder that in addition to some very sophisticated science(s), there is lotsa sausage making in aircraft development and developmental flight test. It is very, very complex and difficult stuff (they’re not building Toyotas) and in spite of all we humans know (or better, all we think we know), the ‘unknown’ and the ‘imperfect’ are always present — and it has never been otherwise. However, in the 21st century — the day and age of near ubiquity of information —that makes it (designing etc jets) more political because many use ‘the imperfect’ to exploit lay readers’ unfamiliarity with how it all gets done — design, development, build, test, and problem resolution.

For many people it seems that fighter aircraft are like some type of consumer goods, something that goes with the next hype. :roll:

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2019, 14:44
by marsavian
quicksilver wrote:And so what is your point?


Just a geeky one about how it took several iterations to finally resolve this issue. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction to find the details and it was interesting to follow the progress on this year by year and I certainly fully retract my statement about lack of transparency when in fact there was full transparency. DefenseNews were sensational trashy tabloid in their presentation of this issue. This issue was certainly never "Hidden" as they stated.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2019, 16:21
by quicksilver
“...it took several iterations to finally resolve this issue.”

It’s science; often that is the case. Heat transfer and fluid mechanics, advanced materials, aerodynamics...

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2019, 17:00
by botsing
marsavian wrote:DefenseNews were sensational trashy tabloid in their presentation of this issue. This issue was certainly never "Hidden" as they stated.

Then why did you rehash this trash without even doing some in-depth research yourself?

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2019, 17:31
by Gums
Salute!

Well, if you have a requirement to have both 1) LO and 2) supercruise, then you have material challenges and motor problems and airframe drag problems........ "there must be fifty ways..."

So I am not surprised about ablative conditions on special stealth coatings, is anyone? As an anecdote, I flew target missions back in 1966 at 49,500 and 1.15M or so in the VooDoo. A good run could be ten minutes or so by using min burner in one and mil in the other motor. No problems with paint peeling off of the elevator, but the RAM is different. Our squad also flew some high Q and low altitude profiles at Tyndall using the AIM-4 and Genie. One youngster got so fast that the paint on the intakes was peeling!

The supercruise requirement for the Stubby is ridiculous. Ditto for the Raptor.

In the Viper, we could duplicate the VooDoo profile up above 40,000 using min burner. We could quickly get supersonic in a shallow dive but I never saw any tactical advantage. Give me a few degrees of turn rate and better accel from 0.7M to 0.9M. My view is a few folks got fixated on this supercruise thing. A hundred knots or 0.2M faster won't make a blip on the stats of the engagements. Being able to get the first shot off with a cosmic missile or sneaking into the fight is a far better requirement to meet.

I flew three planes within their first year of operational use. None had perfect supply/logistics support for a year or more. None met every single "operational" requirement from the "dreamers" up above. Two of them went to combat within first two years, and one went durimg the "IOT&E" of the plane! The first deliveries to USAF were early spring of 1967 and the squadron delpoyed in July to Bien Hoa. We had to order tools and Radio Flyer wagons for flightline support from Sears until the logistics were squared away. The Viper was a close second, and the first year at Hill saw many "local purchases" of tools, ladders and such.

I was more concerned about the helmet than anything. The aero capabilities seemed to be restricted by fiat than actual flight test findings. And they are gone!

My feeling is that the Hornet mafia and the F-15X or whatever folks, and the Hawg group still resents the plane.

Gums sends...

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2019, 09:36
by quicksilver
“My feeling is that the Hornet mafia and the F-15X or whatever folks, and the Hawg group still resents the plane.”

Agree. Some recurring tribal behaviors still very prominent in military aviation today, USN in particular as Navy tacair has been all but homogenized.

I remember some of the “you can’t make this s___ up” horror stories from friends who were early members of VFA-125 at Lemoore when the Hornet transition began in the early 80s. Some of the wives would even get a ration of it from other wives at the club or the commissary, “...this Hornet thing...they/you are sending Naval Aviation down the road to ruin” — which of course came from their husbands who were A-7 mafia.

IMV, some of it is tribal identity and loyalty; some of it is a natural consequence of the competitive nature of tacair culture (a good thing); some of it is ‘no longer driving the coolest car on the block’ (and having your a$$ kicked by some of the snot-nosed kids who just learned how to fly the thing); and, some of it — as Tom Wolfe wrote about in the Right Stuff — is about the feeling of ‘being left behind’ (some not selected in spite of application, some not in the right career window, some displaced from jobs in formerly 2/4 seat aircraft (single seat jets always a threat to the two-anchor world).

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2019, 13:18
by mixelflick
Except the pilots/wives really were stuck with an inferior aircraft on many counts.

Politics and $ built the Hornet and SH, military requirements - not so much. To this day that decision weighs heavily on the carrier air wing, with a less than dominant "strike fighter" filling the decks of every large carrier we field.

The rest of what you wrote I agree with completely. Most people don't want to give up what's comfortable for what's uncomfortable...

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2019, 13:58
by quicksilver
No. The Hornet did everything better than the A-7 except range (and typically by a significant margin); the bitching was about disruption of the pecking order, and they were the ones moving down.

The Hornet will go down in Naval Aviation history as one of the best combat aircraft ever.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2019, 14:05
by vilters
Oh no,
It will go down in the books as : "The one we HAD to buy."
Close followed with : "if only we could have had. . . . . . "

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2019, 14:29
by quicksilver
vilters wrote:Oh no,
It will go down in the books as : "The one we HAD to buy."
Close followed with : "if only we could have had. . . . . . "


No doubt, that’s what many interweb “coulda, shoulda, woulda...” experts think — just like many similarly credentialed F-35 critics today.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2019, 14:50
by optimist
mixelflick wrote:Except the pilots/wives really were stuck with an inferior aircraft on many counts.

Politics and $ built the Hornet and SH, military requirements - not so much. To this day that decision weighs heavily on the carrier air wing, with a less than dominant "strike fighter" filling the decks of every large carrier we field.


I'll take that as your uninformed opinion. They actually kept the politics out of the super hornet and is the reason it looks like it does. The block ll is where boeing dumped their 5th gen tech and radar from their x-32.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2019, 14:55
by ricnunes
optimist wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Except the pilots/wives really were stuck with an inferior aircraft on many counts.

Politics and $ built the Hornet and SH, military requirements - not so much. To this day that decision weighs heavily on the carrier air wing, with a less than dominant "strike fighter" filling the decks of every large carrier we field.


I'll take that as your uninformed opinion.


DITTO, optimist and quicksilver!

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 14:00
by mixelflick
vilters wrote:Oh no,
It will go down in the books as : "The one we HAD to buy."
Close followed with : "if only we could have had. . . . . . "


Yep.

My conversation with an F-18 SH pilot..

Question: What does it do better than what its replacing?

Pilot: Well, um, um ... it's a great tanker...

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 14:28
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote:Yep.

My conversation with an F-18 SH pilot..

Question: What does it do better than what its replacing?

Pilot: Well, um, um ... it's a great tanker...


Yeah right, and I'm Donald Duck :roll:

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 15:02
by optimist
Trolls liven up the place and certainly increase the forum's post count. I've also seen forums collapse because posters get sick of it and move on. A couple are tolerable, but the numbers seem to be growing and could do with a pruning.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 15:10
by marsavian
Let the moderators decide who is and isn't a troll. Your opinions are just as strong as Mixelflick just in an opposite slant. However he does not try to bully others to conform to his pov. We really could do without the self-appointed F-35/SH police trying to squash dissenting opinions, it makes for an unpleasant atmosphere ...

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 16:10
by ricnunes
marsavian wrote:We really could do without the self-appointed F-35/SH police trying to squash dissenting opinions, it makes for an unpleasant atmosphere ...


And we could really, really do without people who's opinions have been dismissed and more than proven to be false, time after time and after time (which is the case of mixelflick and his opinion about the Hornet/SH) and yet still posting those same opinions time after time and after time... This borderlines with trolling behavior and it has hardly anything to do with pro "F-35/SH" opinions/facts.

The problem is that I (and I believe others as well) are getting to the point that it's not even worth the bother to refute these posts/opinions. Look at my last but one post for instance!
Moreover, I can see from other posts by mixelflick and the fact that he already has a warning that there's a good chance that he's not that innocent as you're trying to claim or defend.

Moreover if you have something against people defending the "F-35/SH" as you say, perhaps you're in the wrong forum, no?? I'm sure that there are many more forums out there where there's no "F-35/SH police", whatever that means... :roll:
Anyway, this is not the case of defending the 'X' or 'Y' plane as you can read above on the first paragraph!

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 16:25
by marsavian
Opinions dismissed by you ? What makes you the great judge of what is right and wrong ? The fact is even Hornet pilots complain about its lack of kinematics. Personally I think Mixelflick concentrates too much on this as SH is a balanced design with LO, good big AESA, plenty of fuel, great AoA ability, high stores capability however each to his own. Just ignore him if you don't care for his opinion and stop trying to be the thought police on this forum.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 16:28
by quicksilver
You all might want to note that the triggering comment was mine (go back in the thread), and it had nothing to do with SH.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 17:04
by ricnunes
marsavian wrote:Opinions dismissed by you ? What makes you the great judge of what is right and wrong ?


Nope, they were dismissed by many (not only by me!). Even by you, if we read what you posted next and which I'll quote below.
So, go read other posts and replies involving the same author, will you... :roll:

marsavian wrote: The fact is even Hornet pilots complain about its lack of kinematics.


Define "kinematics"?
In terms of "supersonic kinematics", yes there are some "not so good" or negative point about the aircraft - nobody here ever denied it, as far as I know.
However in terms of "subsonic kinematics" which is where the vast majority or air combats seem to take place the SH has some very good kinematics.
Moreover in terms of high AoA maneuvering - I don't know if you consider this to be "kinematics" but I do - it excels the vast majority of other fighter aircraft in existence. (the F-35 being on of the few exceptions)

marsavian wrote:Personally I think Mixelflick concentrates too much on this as SH is a balanced design with LO, good big AESA, plenty of fuel, great AoA ability, high stores capability however each to his own.


Yes, that's what I mean about the SH and what I (and others) have been telling him.

marsavian wrote:Just ignore him if you don't care for his opinion and stop trying to be the thought police on this forum.


Not trying to be a "police". Just trying to call for some "common sense".
Let's say that I don't think that it's good for the forum to have someone repeating the same already dismissed opinion over and over and over again. Of course this is only my personal opinion...

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 18:57
by marsavian
Even subsonically the F-18 is not ideal, it can't match the F-22/F-35/F-15/F-16. Whenever they do DACT with Typhoons or Rafales Hornet pilots are envious of their zoom/acceleration ability and finally look at the comparative test results against X-31 compared to F-15/F-16. Hornets have enough overall ability to make up for these kinematic deficiencies but let us not pretend it is leading in this sphere.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 19:14
by quicksilver
marsavian wrote:Even subsonically the F-18 is not ideal, it can't match the F-22/F-35/F-15/F-16. Whenever they do DACT with Typhoons or Rafales Hornet pilots are envious of their zoom/acceleration ability and finally look at the comparative test results against X-31 compared to F-15/F-16. Hornets have enough overall ability to make up for these kinematic deficiencies but let us not pretend it is leading in this sphere.


There is always something a fighter pilot wants more of, or better than — it’s about having every advantage possible going into the show. The ultimate test of a type is performance in combat and overall performance over time, which includes survivability, reliability and ease of maintenance, and it’s safety record.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 21:12
by outlaw162
The ultimate test of a type........and it’s safety record.


That used to be more a function of the drivers than the type. Now, as fighters become more 'technologically' advanced, and subsequently 'safer' to operate, the difference between the worst pilot in the squadron and the best pilot in any area you pick has narrowed.

For example, operationally, a comparison of the range of squadron manual (gasp) bombing scores versus bombing scores after squadron upgrade to a computed delivery system would highlight that 'narrower' gap. Narrowed even more with 'smart' bombs and the same 'dumb' pilots.

Though the 'worst' pilot was always considered adequate above a somewhat arbitrarily set cutoff (depending on the overall need for bodies to fill cockpits) below which was considered inadequate....safety-wise, the previous 'wider' gap was often highlighted by a fairly regular change in the standings resulting in a new 'worst' pilot in the squadron after each accident.

Safety records in the teen series and beyond are significantly improved over the predecessors....due more to the type than the same range of drivers.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 21:36
by quicksilver
Yep. The new stuff is safer, and easier...and better.

Some of the ‘new’ were step-function shifts from their predecessors — the Hornet would be one, in spite of the conspicuous controversy during its development and introduction. I am less specifically familiar with the Viper but would argue its case similarly.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2019, 01:58
by optimist
optimist wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Except the pilots/wives really were stuck with an inferior aircraft on many counts.

Politics and $ built the Hornet and SH, military requirements - not so much. To this day that decision weighs heavily on the carrier air wing, with a less than dominant "strike fighter" filling the decks of every large carrier we field.


I'll take that as your uninformed opinion. They actually kept the politics out of the super hornet and is the reason it looks like it does. The block ll is where boeing dumped their 5th gen tech and radar from their x-32.


This is what struck me as factually wrong, as a quick google will show. Indeed if he knew anything, He would know it wasn't politics that built the Super hornet. It was deliberately done as a legacy hornet 'update' by USN, that kept a lot of political oversight out of it. It was indeed a master stroke that may not work next time. Depending on memories. It was a design made to look like the legacy hornet, It could have just as easily be shaped differently. It had to go through all the elements of a clean sheet design. It was the reason it came in on time and budget compared to other clean sheet programs. It was indeed built by military requirements and politics had relatively, nothing to do with it.

As to 'pilots wives', other than being straight out offensive. There is a USN boat forum, where the USN pilots post. It's not hard to read snippets of what they think of their ride, in an unclas environment.

As I said in my reply, block II was a way for Boeing to make money out of the X-32 5th gen tech. They sold the navy on the idea and the rest is history.

It's not hard to pick who's trolling on any forum, about anything. There are indeed trolls here, it's just a matter of how many are acceptable and the manner in which they troll. I really wouldn't miss a couple of them.

As to "Let the moderators decide who is and isn't a troll." I haven't referred any posts for moderation and as you would know. The board isn't moderated closely

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2019, 17:32
by mixelflick
ricnunes wrote:
marsavian wrote:We really could do without the self-appointed F-35/SH police trying to squash dissenting opinions, it makes for an unpleasant atmosphere ...


And we could really, really do without people who's opinions have been dismissed and more than proven to be false, time after time and after time (which is the case of mixelflick and his opinion about the Hornet/SH) and yet still posting those same opinions time after time and after time... This borderlines with trolling behavior and it has hardly anything to do with pro "F-35/SH" opinions/facts.

The problem is that I (and I believe others as well) are getting to the point that it's not even worth the bother to refute these posts/opinions. Look at my last but one post for instance!
Moreover, I can see from other posts by mixelflick and the fact that he already has a warning that there's a good chance that he's not that innocent as you're trying to claim or defend.

Moreover if you have something against people defending the "F-35/SH" as you say, perhaps you're in the wrong forum, no?? I'm sure that there are many more forums out there where there's no "F-35/SH police", whatever that means... :roll:
Anyway, this is not the case of defending the 'X' or 'Y' plane as you can read above on the first paragraph!
4


Good lord, because I have a strong opinion and "a warning", I'm "not so innocent"? Meaning what exactly? I'm a troll and come here just to argue with people?

You may not like my strong comments regarding the SH, but I never once asked/badgered someone to change their opinion (which is more than I can say for you). I've also been around here for no small amount of time, which is one hell of a lot longer than what can be said of you. If I benefited from someone's information, I've said so and thanked them. There are numerous examples of such over the 9+ years I've been here.

With respect to getting a "warning", so what? One warning in almost a decade? That's what you're using to say I'm a "troll".

Really???

Listen champ, I'm not here to make you happy. I'm here to learn and share, and I've been doing it for years. You don't like the fact I don't care for the SH? Fine. But I'm not the only one making similar comments about it. So don't try to make me (or anyone) out to be the bad guy, just because our opinion doesn't match yours.

If anyone's suspect or "not so innocent" because of their behavior, it's people like you...

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2019, 19:37
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote: You don't like the fact I don't care for the SH? Fine.


This is not a matter of you liking the Hornet/SH or don't. I couldn't care less if you like or not...

The "problem" that I have here is the false premisses of your comments such as:
- Stating the "Hornet is crap" just because it was shot down by a Mig-25 during Operation Desert Storm during after some very unfortunate events that were in NO WAY related to the quality (or not) of the Hornet! Several members in this forum (besides me) proven that you're wrong about this. However the result of this was that you didn't learn anything with this as you continued to mock the facts given by you (about the Hornet's strong points and how they prove you wrong), this on other threads around this same forum.
- Another example/problem is the UTTER LIES that you spelled in this thread which were:
1- Comments that I'm pretty sure no Hornet/SH did.
2- With the above trying to prove the false premisse that the Hornet wasn't any better than what it was replacing (here, I assume the A-7 and/or F-4) when in fact it's well known that the Hornet is far superior than these planes (again the A-7 and F-4).
3- Also, with the above trying to prove the false premisse that the SH (super Hornet) wasn't any better than what it was replacing (I assume F-14) when in fact it's well known that the SH is superior in many regards/features than the F-14.

The above are facts which by the way totally contradicts what you said earlier and which I'll re-post/quote below:
mixelflick wrote:I'm here to learn and share, and I've been doing it for years.


:roll:

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2019, 19:47
by mixelflick
ricnunes wrote:
mixelflick wrote: You don't like the fact I don't care for the SH? Fine.


This is not a matter of you liking the Hornet/SH or don't. I couldn't care less if you like or not...

The "problem" that I have here is the false premisses of your comments such as:
- Stating the "Hornet is crap" just because it was shot down by a Mig-25 during Operation Desert Storm during after some very unfortunate events that were in NO WAY related to the quality (or not) of the Hornet! Several members in this forum (besides me) proven that you're wrong about this. However the result of this was that you didn't learn anything with this as you continued to mock the facts given by you (about the Hornet's strong points and how they prove you wrong), this on other threads around this same forum.
- Another example/problem is the UTTER LIES that you spelled in this thread which were:
1- Comments that I'm pretty sure no Hornet/SH did.
2- With the above trying to prove the false premisse that the Hornet wasn't any better than what it was replacing (here, I assume the A-7 and/or F-4) when in fact it's well known that the Hornet is far superior than these planes (again the A-7 and F-4).
3- Also, with the above trying to prove the false premisse that the SH (super Hornet) wasn't any better than what it was replacing (I assume F-14) when in fact it's well known that the SH is superior in many regards/features than the F-14.

The above are facts which by the way totally contradicts what you said earlier and which I'll re-post/quote below:
mixelflick wrote:I'm here to learn and share, and I've been doing it for years.


:roll:


YOU: Comments that I'm pretty sure no Hornet/SH did.

You would be wrong. Very, very wrong.

Nevertheless, you accuse me of being a liar. In fact you went so far as to capitalize it for the whole world to see (UTTER LIES). Saying that I'm spreading that (supposed) lie to help make my points. That's a pretty strong accusation to make, knowing you can do so behind an anonymous username. If you and I were face to face, I'm quite sure you wouldn't be so brazen. And even if you were, how ridiculous is it for 2 adults to be engaged in that kind of banter?

I didn't record it because I didn't know someone like you would be so antagonistic (and ridiculous) to say it never happened. And the F-18 shoot down (let me get this straight), has nothing to do with the F-18? Because that's what you're strongly implying. You don't like the fact I think it does?


Refer to this point..

Listen champ, I'm not here to make you happy.


You also attempt to move the goal posts saying where the Hornet/SH is far superior to the A-7/F-4. No sh#$ sherlock. Kindly point out where I ever said we should go back to the A-7 or F-4. Whenever I spoke about the F-18, it was usually in the context of comparing it to the F-14, Tomcat 21 etc.. But because you like taking things out of context, you're attempting to do so again here. Don't think I or the other members here are that stupid.

I also note that you completely avoided the fact you're a Johnny come lately, whereas I've been around here a lot longer than you and in those 9+ years received just ONE warning. Do you see me attacking you? No. And believe me champ, there's plenty of material to use. Since you ascribe such importance to warnings though, keep posting your rubbish for all to see. It just gives me more material to give it to a mod with..

And I'm not "learning" because I don't agree with some points discussed? That's YOUR opinion. I'm of a different opinion. And it doesn't matter if you get a citation from God, I'm standing by my convictions.

With respect to all of the other "crap" you wrote, refer to this again...

One more time champ": I'm not here to make you happy...

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2019, 20:27
by mixelflick
marsavian wrote:Let the moderators decide who is and isn't a troll. Your opinions are just as strong as Mixelflick just in an opposite slant. However he does not try to bully others to conform to his pov. We really could do without the self-appointed F-35/SH police trying to squash dissenting opinions, it makes for an unpleasant atmosphere ...


Listen Boss, you should take the above advice (instead of spewing verbal insults/calling people liars)

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2019, 12:16
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote:Nevertheless, you accuse me of being a liar. In fact you went so far as to capitalize it for the whole world to see (UTTER LIES). Saying that I'm spreading that (supposed) lie to help make my points. That's a pretty strong accusation to make, knowing you can do so behind an anonymous username.


Ok, while I still stand by the logic of what I said in my previous post, I admit that I used some harsh words towards you, namely and specially the ones that you're referring in the part that I quoted above (I should have used other words).

As such I apologize for the words that I used above.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2019, 13:58
by mixelflick
ricnunes wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Nevertheless, you accuse me of being a liar. In fact you went so far as to capitalize it for the whole world to see (UTTER LIES). Saying that I'm spreading that (supposed) lie to help make my points. That's a pretty strong accusation to make, knowing you can do so behind an anonymous username.


Ok, while I still stand by the logic of what I said in my previous post, I admit that I used some harsh words towards you, namely and specially the ones that you're referring in the part that I quoted above (I should have used other words).

As such I apologize for the words that I used above.


Apology accepted.

Now lets just forget this and move forward..

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2019, 16:08
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote:Apology accepted.

Now lets just forget this and move forward..


Thanks and roger that.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 06:56
by steve2267
The forum was a bit quiet today, so like an idiot I googled "F-35 news" and went to see if there were any new stories. What did I find but National Bullsh*t re-running some old, regurgitated trash. And, like an idiot, I read it. It referred back to the June 2019 hit piece by little Miss Aircraft Designer extraordinarie, Ms Insinna, which also referenced the piece by Larter:

When US Navy and Marine F-35 pilots most need performance, the aircraft becomes erratic
DefenseNews By: David B. Larter June 12, 2019

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy’s and Marine Corps’ F-35s become unpredictable to handle when executing the kind of extreme maneuvers a pilot would use in a dogfight or while avoiding a missile, according to documents exclusively obtained by Defense News.

Specifically, the Marine short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variant and the Navy’s carrier-launched version become difficult to control when the aircraft is operating above a 20-degree angle of attack, ...

Pilots reported the aircraft experiencing unpredictable changes in pitch, as well as erratic yaw and rolling motions. ...

A Lockheed Martin executive told Defense News in a statement that he expects the issue to be resolved or downgraded soon as a result of software fixes.

We’ve implemented an update to the flight control system that is planned for integration in the third quarter of this year — and we expect this item to be resolved or downgraded,” said Greg Ulmer, Lockheed Martin vice president and general manager of the company’s F-35 program.

...

In a deficiency report from the fleet, aviators said the issue "will cause modal confusion, prevent precise lift vector control, and prevent repeatable air-to-air combat techniques, resulting in mid-air collisions during training, controlled flight into terrain, and aircraft loss during combat engagements with adversary aircraft and missiles," according to the documents.

“Fleet pilots agreed it is very difficult to max perform the aircraft” in those circumstances, the document notes.

...

“It has random oscillations, pitch and yaw issues above [its] 20-[degree angle of attack]," the aviator said.

...
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2019/06/12/when-us-navy-and-marine-f-35-pilots-most-need-performance-the-aircraft-becomes-erratic/


I just re-read through this entire thread, including the last few pages of troll baiting & bickering to make sure I didn't miss anything.

Here's my question:

Has anyone read any followup reports or actual journalistic reporting (and not this yellow journalism) or corresponded with anyone who knows what the h*ll

  • experiencing unpredictable changes in pitch
  • erratic yaw and rolling motions
  • modal confusion
  • random oscillations, pitch and yaw issues above 20° alpha

mean?

Never did find a clarification on what modal confusion is. Maybe a Bee pilot got confused and though he had inadvertently pushed the magic Mode 4 button? :doh: (Like that would happen.)

These uber reporters do not even give an inkling where in the flight envelope this occurs. Was it at low altitude only? At all airspeeds? Or only within a certain airspeed range? (20° alpha probably ain't happening @ 500kts, for example.)

Are these issues just "buffet" being blown way out of proportion? Or is this another name for transonic rolloff? (But again... don't think you're going to be above 20° alpha in the transonic region and still have your wings attached.) I can't decide if this was just sensational BS by non-pilots that don't know what buffet is? Or is this something altogether different than buffet? (Frankly, I'm unclear on how some FLCS CLAW changes are going to fix buffeting.) If CLAW changes made the issue go away, does that imply the "issues" were CLAW-induced from the beginning?

I'm fairly certain above 20° alpha, the F-35 is definitely experiencing flow separation. What with the VLO requirements precluding aero tricks like leading edge fences or sawteeth etc, the aircraft OML design is hard pressed to fix separation locations to the same geometric location at all times, let alone at the same location from port to starboard, or that the flow separates off the port and starboard identically. Hence I can easily see how flow separating randomly from the port to the starboard could lead to not only buffet, but to "random" roll oscillations. BUT... the OML of the F-35B is pretty close to the F-35A... why didn't the -A have similar issues? (Could the fairing over the gun create enough flow asymmetry that it actually ameliorates the issue?) Of course, I could be all wet too.

Anyway, has anyone read or seen any further elucidation of just what the h*ll these cub aero reporters were getting all huffy about?

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 07:59
by spazsinbad
:devil: Maybe 'modal confusion' is similar to 'model confusion'? :doh: :mrgreen: Pilots don't know what F-35 MODEL they's in? :roll: 8)

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 14:19
by quicksilver
“Anyway, has anyone read or seen any further elucidation of just what the h*ll these cub aero reporters were getting all huffy about?“

Were I interested in the matter, I would go to the LM AIAA papers.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 16:07
by Gums
Salute!

Interesting "opinions", I feel. I did not see the original stuff back in June.

When I get a fellow aviator repeat the heresay I pull out my iPhone and show him the Paris demo. Typical reaction is "duuuhhhhh, errrrr, planes aren't supposed to be able to fly like that"

Gums sends...

P.S. My first official F-22 demo I saw was back in 2007 at the Ft Lauderdale all-service bash, complete with a performance by the Birds. Reaction amongst our august, seasoned, combat veteran pilots of my vintage was the same. "How do dey do dat?"

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 17:09
by quicksilver
steve, help us understand your concern given that we are now 7 months beyond the reporting which included statements from both USG and LM leadership that the issues were already resolved, or on a pathway to resolution or downgrade.

My limited understanding of the claws is that there is some kind of transition in the control laws to a different logic (my word) that occurs once the jet gets above a certain aoa. We have spoken in recent threads about how the claws in many aircraft can sometimes ‘over-protect’ the pilot (or aircraft, depending how one looks at it) from exceeding a variety of different limits. Those limits are sometimes not placard limits but rather are other kinds of limits that are put in place in the claws to prevent an exceedance for other things discovered in flight test like, e.g. — loads on specific structure, or a sideslip rate that combined with a certain alpha might be predictive of a departure from controlled flight, etc. And, sometimes what a test pilot finds is that the ‘over-protection’ can be adjusted a bit to make sure the pilot isn’t just along for the ride in circumstances where ones proximity to other jets creates its own danger. In other words, the jet can be unnecessarily out of the pilot’s control because the claws won’t respond to certain control inputs in a meaningful way. IIRC, early in the life of the Viper there were some CFIT mishaps where control law limits were a contributing factor. These things get resolved in on-going engineering and flight test.

I’ve pointed out before that in spite of all we humans think we know, the ‘imperfect’ and the ‘unknown’ always accompany technological advancement.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 17:53
by spazsinbad
'QS' comment above is reflected by the LM Test Pilot Dan Canin article repeated now a few times on this forum explaining.

Semper Lightning: F-35 Flight Control System 09 Dec 2015 Dan “Dog” Canin

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=187

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 18:05
by steve2267
QS,

Not sure I'd describe my inquiry as "concern," rather more like "curiousity." Given the absolute sh*t nature of the reporting, I could note tell what the "journos" were writing about.

  • experiencing unpredictable changes in pitch
  • erratic yaw and rolling motions
  • modal confusion
  • random oscillations, pitch and yaw issues above 20° alpha

Does anyone know what "modal confusion" is -- other than an attempt to get a different callsign? (Maybe someone really wanted "hammer", but would not under any condition be given that, so they figured they'd try for "MC"?)

"Unpredictable changes in pitch" and "erratic yaw and rolling motions" sounds like it could be the buffet "Dolbe" Hanche described in some of his Norwegian blog articles. But "random oscillations, pitch and yaw issues" leaves me scratching my head trying to understand what is being described. Depending on how flow is shedding off of different parts of the aircraft, and its frequency... I suppose you could get some oscillations, especially if it somehow coupled with the CLAW somehow.

Maybe the question I am trying to ask, and doing a poor job, is: "are these idiot reporters describing buffet / making a big todo out of buffeting?" Or was there something else going on?

But if it was buffet... I don't see CLAW fixing buffet. I am guessing you can't move the stabs or any other control surfaces fast enough (nor would you want to?) to try to damp out buffet like that.

If it was not buffet, the engineer in me is curious what it was.

It would appear the story "died" and went away because the CLAW fixes LM put into place corrected any issues identified by testing.

Again, as a recovering aero engineer, am curious what was "corrected" or was a "non-event" in the first place. It's really hard to tell with the level of reporting. (I think I may have "missed" this story when it came out -- oh... I may have been on up in Canada paddling the boundary waters on the Boy Scout Atikokan High Adventure with my son during this time. That would explain why I didn't see it until now.)

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 18:55
by steve2267
Saw Spaz' post in a different thread... viewtopic.php?p=433023#p433023

The article he quotes there mentions the F-35 (as well as other designs) having "abrupt wing stall" characteristics. Yeah, I could see how if the wings abruptly stall that's going to have an unexpected pitch characteristic. And if one wings abruptly stalls before the other... that would tend to induce roll... and roll-yaw coupling could give you yaw. So... it's beginning to sound like issues dealing with how the Stab & Ctrl wizards were dealing with the onset of stall through post-stall flying qualities.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 19:04
by quicksilver
Modal confusion... e.g. — I make a control input that would normally produce a roll but I get a pitch response instead.

Our expectations of how a flying machine should/will respond to our inputs is very much a consequence of our experience flying the machines we have flown before. Even with experience in different types there is still a learning process that goes on in each new type. In short, they are all different — sometimes by greater or lesser degrees — but different nonetheless. Mastery of each requires not just technical knowledge but repeated exposure that develops a ‘feel’ for predictable response; one is trying to get to the point where one intuitively and instantaneously understands, “...when I do this, I get (...the jet will do) that,” or, “...if I want to do maneuver X, I have to do input Y first.“.

Sometimes the learning can be quite stark, even for those trained to understand and identify the differences in very technical terms.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 19:07
by sprstdlyscottsmn
If this is the old Transonic Roll Off issue...

" However, TRO “has evolved into a non-factor,” says Nelson, who likens the effect to a momentary “tug” on one shoulder harness. “You have to pull high-g to even find it.” The roll-off phenomena exhibits itself as “less than 10 deg./sec. for a fraction of a second. We have been looking for a task it affects and we can’t find one.”

is the quote I have on it

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 19:09
by sprstdlyscottsmn
quicksilver wrote:Modal confusion... e.g. — I make a control input that would normally produce a roll but I get a pitch response instead.


That sounds like the pilots feedback from the old "F-16 dogfight" CLAW test. It was trying to blend from low AoA laws to high AoA laws at 20-25 degrees when teh test pilot said it should be upped to 30-35 degrees.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 19:14
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:'QS' comment above is reflected by the LM Test Pilot Dan Canin article repeated now a few times on this forum explaining.

Semper Lightning: F-35 Flight Control System 09 Dec 2015 Dan “Dog” Canin

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=187


Great recall spaz. A great example of a product that helps pilots understand how and why F-35 is/may be different than the machine they flew before.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 19:45
by steve2267
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:If this is the old Transonic Roll Off issue...

" However, TRO “has evolved into a non-factor,” says Nelson, who likens the effect to a momentary “tug” on one shoulder harness. “You have to pull high-g to even find it.” The roll-off phenomena exhibits itself as “less than 10 deg./sec. for a fraction of a second. We have been looking for a task it affects and we can’t find one.”

is the quote I have on it


I suspect this is not the old TRO issue... I don't think the jet will be up around 20°+ alpha up in the transonic region. It sounds like they are trying to fight the jet (i.e. fly @ 20° and fight other aircraft) up around 20° alpha, which sounds like just below natural wing stall AoA... that is around L/D_max or corner speed.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 20:16
by steve2267
I recalled the CL_alpha plot Spurts posted in my vapes thread the other week had an inflection right around alpha = 20°.

I shameless grabbed Spurts' plot and annotated it. I also ran across a statement somewhere in the last day -- and I cannot recall where, whether it was on here, or an article I ran across -- but it said the F-35 likes to fight at around 20° alpha. Which kind of makes sense. If the wing stalls around 20°(ish), then the pilot would be trying to max perform the wing right before the stall point, which should be right about where he get's the best "natural" CL_max, no? (Without all the Stab&Ctrl magic & greatly increased drag -- actually, wouldn't this be pretty close to the L/D_max point?)

So if you're trying to fight the jet around the corner speed and L/D_max... right before the stall point (i.e. abrupt flow separation point), but the OML, driven by VLO requirements, has abrupt wing stall issues... then, yes, I could see how Stab&Ctrl magic which is being used to handle these flow issues, could be involved here, and updates to said magic could address any issues.

CL-alpha (stall region annotated).png


How F-35 Experience Could Reduce Hurdles To Developing Fighters
07 Sep 2018 Graham Warwick
...

Requirements call for maneuverability “on par with any fourth-generation fighter,” says Canin, “which is an achievement for an aircraft with an outer mold line driven by other requirements.” The F-35 has to be able to use all the maneuverability it has. The program office called for air-to-air tracking up to stall AOA, or alpha, followed by predictable and controllable post-stall handling. “The aircraft has to be departure-resistant in any normal tactical maneuver and recover with minimal pilot input,” he says.

“At high AOA, the [aerodynamic] model is very challenging to build, so there is some augmentation outside the model to correct for errors,” says Canin, adding: “High-alpha control is all about allocation of horizontal tail power for yaw and pitch.”
...

Source: http://now.eloqua.com/es.asp?s=96691307 ... Id=13994#1 [no longer available of course] [AvWeak Original: http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft ... g-fighters


I find myself going back to my thoughts on that vapes thread... To "use all the maneuverability it has," I posit that LM has pushed the wing right to the edge, and those "vapes" I noted appearing simultaneously across the span of the wing -- from the "mini-lerx" (some people asked about) right out the tip -- are an indication of how LM has taken advantage of as much lift as possible across the entire wing. Spurts made a great comment that you cannot deduce a lot about the "flow field" from the vapes... that the vapes are really only highlighting a region of low pressure. So the dominant region of low pressure on the F-35 wing appears to be across the entire wing. If the flow across that entire region abruptly separates... that would tend to explain "abrupt wing stall behavior." If one wing abruptly stalls, then the other, you're going to experience asymmetric lift -- a roll.

The F-16 and F/A-18 designs do not suffer from this phenomena as greatly, because they cheat -- they depend more on their forebody strakes & LERX to generate and manage their lift as they get into high AoA / post-stall flight (F/A-18), and this is evidenced by photos / videos showing their low pressure region (i.e. "vapes") to be concentrated in the vortex street shedding coming off the strakes / LERX. The F-35, most probably due to VLO requirements, does not have LERX, well, not nearly as large -- it has the nose chine and a small "lip" running back from the leading edge of the air intake to the wing. One definitely sees vortex shedding coming off the chine/air intake lip on the F-35, but it is a much smaller region compared to the Viper/Hornet, and is small compared to the vapes that emanate from across the entire wing leading edge.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 20:46
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Just a note, that Cl curve is for the F-16 in a wind tunnel, a few points on the plot HAPPENED to line up with estimations I had made independently of F-35 linear and max CL values

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 20:48
by steve2267
Ahh, I found the quote about where the jet likes to fight -- it's in the infamous CLAW test memo. (Re-attaching it in case someone wants a copy handy.)

F-35A High Angle of Attack Operational Maneuvers
Author unknown 14 January 2015

Test Aircraft: AF-2, Test 715, Flight 505, Configuration 10-001B (Clean Wing), 0.1-v12.006 (R33.1)

...

High Angle of Attack Blended Region

The flying qualities in the blended region (20-26 degrees AOA) were not intuitive or favorable. This was especially frustrating because as the sortie progressed it was apparent that the aircraft fought best at the lower end of this alpha whether turning or established in a tree/scissors; so the lateral/directional control was often unpredictable. This flight seemed to be especially effective in revealing this flaw because in most tests the AOA is readily apparent (or targeted) and, therefore, the response is expected. However, during a dynamic fight, where attention is focused on the bandit rather than the specific AOA, the lateral/directional response was often confusing. There were multiple times where a roll rate was expected yet not achieved or a body-axis yaw rate was expected and beta resulted. In other cases, the response changed during the maneuver as the AOA blended into this region.

During a tree, the anti-spin logic engaged as a direct result of this unpredictability. The F35 had gained a 3/9 advantage and the pilot desired to maneuver behind the bandit. A full rudder input had no result initially, but after a few seconds the jet began to maneuver simultaneously to the command being abandoned and replaced with stick input. Once the delayed result appeared from the initial rudder input, the rudder was promptly re-input to encourage the aircraft to continue. A fantastic yaw rate followed, only to be spoiled by the anti-spin logic. The anti-spin logic was surprisingly pronounced. As has been experienced on other high AOA missions, there is ample control authority for arresting yaw rate. Whereas rudder inputs often feel sluggish/gradual or delayed, the anti-spin logic is immediate, abrupt, and forceful. Perhaps some of the available authority may be given to the pilot while still preventing departure.

In retrospect, a seemingly valuable improvement would be to adjust the blended region to at least 30° AOA. There are two reasons. The first is to ensure predictability. Since this aircraft seemed to fight best near 20°, controls should not be blended near this region. The pilot is not consciously at "high" AOA at 25° but at 40°, an affirmative decision was made to be there. The second is purely geometric and also aids in predictability. Geometrically, at 26° the aircraft is still relatively "shallow" so it's still intuitive that a roll stick would result in a stability axis roll and a rudder would result in yaw. Mathematically, an even blend (50%) would occur at 30 degrees (sin30°) and this seems to match the "seat of the pants" feeling for the pilot as well.

...


Note: the CLAW test reportedly took place around 18-22,000' MSL, and starting airspeeds ranged from 380kts - 440kts.

Ya know... the more I re-read this old portion of the CLAW test... I would not be surprised at all if the "journos" were simply regurgitating old tripe from the CLAW test, but this time focusing on the "modal confusion" aspect, and unexpected aircraft responses. Combined with the fact that the aircraft is moving through aerodynamic stall / separating flow, potentially transonic shocks dancing across the upper wing surfaces / and into post-stall flight characteristics... Applying Occam's Razor, poor journalistic practices / rehashing old stories would seem to be the most likely explanation -- a whole lot of todo about nothing (or problems already solved and put to bed with CLAW updates).

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 20:56
by steve2267
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Just a note, that Cl curve is for the F-16 in a wind tunnel, a few points on the plot HAPPENED to line up with estimations I had made independently of F-35 linear and max CL values


Spurts, thanks for that clarification.

I will note that companies seem to like to stick with something they have used in the past / that has worked well for them. To wit, while I have not found any confirmation in open source literature, it seems reasonable to assume (dangerous!) that the F-35 airfoil may be the same as what the F-16 used, OR very similar. Additionally, although not identical, and with the Viper's trailing edge being perpendicular to the fuselage, the wing planform of the F-35 is not drastically different than the F-16. So I would not be surprised to learn that Cl curve in that plot for the F-16, is similar to the F-35. Specifically, that there is some sort of inflection in the 20-26° range. Maybe the LM guys and gals squeezed a few more degrees (or tenths of a degree) out of the Cl & CL curves before separation occurs. But I doubt they found an extra 5° alpha. FWIW.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 21:01
by quicksilver
The fight described in the article is slow speed scissors stuff, nowhere near transonic speeds.

This, described in the Canin article, is what was happening wrt creating modal confusion in the fight described in the other article — “As g increases, the roll rate is reduced, and, if we’re commanding more than 50 deg/sec, the airplane unloads to get us back within the 0.8NzW limit.”

The comment about fighting better at 20a was (in my view) more about getting predictable response to control inputs because once you went higher they got confusing modal responses (command ‘roll’, get ‘pitch’ response first).

They wanted more alpha, the jet was plenty capable of giving more, but the non-modal (my word) response was a consequence and thus they preferred not to go there (into and above the blend).

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 21:08
by steve2267
quicksilver wrote:The fight described in the article is slow speed scissors stuff, nowhere near transonic speeds.

This, described in the Canin article, is what was happening wrt creating modal confusion in the fight described in the other article — “As g increases, the roll rate is reduced, and, if we’re commanding more than 50 deg/sec, the airplane unloads to get us back within the 0.8NzW limit.”


Too many "articles" and I'm becoming confused about just what we're discussing.

I can see how the quote you make about roll rate being reduced at high G, as introducing "modal confusion." But I also see "modal confusion" in the CLAW test report which was occurring at scissoring speeds (what -- 150-250kts?), that is, command roll, but get yaw (or roll & yaw), or command pitch but get nada etc.

So whether it be when scissoring, or trying to turn & burn up around corner speed or higher... I see that we are basically discussing flying qualities that are a result of the CLAW logic. Ho hum. Far far far from the "world is ending" as the journos would have the reading public believe.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2020, 21:29
by quicksilver
steve2267 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:The fight described in the article is slow speed scissors stuff, nowhere near transonic speeds.

This, described in the Canin article, is what was happening wrt creating modal confusion in the fight described in the other article — “As g increases, the roll rate is reduced, and, if we’re commanding more than 50 deg/sec, the airplane unloads to get us back within the 0.8NzW limit.”


Too many "articles" and I'm becoming confused about just what we're discussing.

I can see how the quote you make about roll rate being reduced at high G, as introducing "modal confusion." But I also see "modal confusion" in the CLAW test report which was occurring at scissoring speeds (what -- 150-250kts?), that is, command roll, but get yaw (or roll & yaw), or command pitch but get nada etc.

So whether it be when scissoring, or trying to turn & burn up around corner speed or higher... I see that we are basically discussing flying qualities that are a result of the CLAW logic. Ho hum. Far far far from the "world is ending" as the journos would have the reading public believe.


And alotta this stuff has already been tweaked (it’s now 2020...) — for example, tripping anti-spin logic (in 2015) vs the high yaw rates Hanche (or perhaps the Venable/Heritage article) refers to and that we also see as a matter of routine in the airshow demos.

Because we live in the digital age, flight test has known more and learned more (i.e. ‘discovery’) about the F-35 than any fighter aircraft ever.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2020, 21:09
by spazsinbad
The caravan has moved on but the dogs are barking non-stop AS IF (it makes a difference except in online views perhaps).
The Pentagon will have to live with limits on F-35’s supersonic flights
24 Apr 2020 David B. Larter, Valerie Insinna, & Aaron Mehta

"WASHINGTON — An issue that risks damage to the F-35’s tail section if the aircraft needs to maintain supersonic speeds is not worth fixing and will instead be addressed by changing the operating parameters, the F-35 Joint Program Office told Defense News in a statement Friday.

The deficiency, first reported by Defense News in 2019, means that at extremely high altitudes, the U.S. Navy’s and Marine Corps’ versions of the F-35 jet can only fly at supersonic speeds for short bursts of time before there is a risk of structural damage and loss of stealth capability.

The problem may make it impossible for the Navy’s F-35C to conduct supersonic intercepts.

“This issue was closed on December 17, 2019 with no further actions and concurrence from the U.S. services,” the F-35 JPO statement read. “The [deficiency report] was closed under the category of ‘no plan to correct,’ which is used by the F-35 team when the operator value provided by a complete fix does not justify the estimated cost of that fix.

“In this case, the solution would require a lengthy development and flight testing of a material coating that can tolerate the flight environment for unlimited time while satisfying the weight and other requirements of a control surface. Instead, the issue is being addressed procedurally by imposing a time limit on high-speed flight.”

The carrier-launched "C" variant and the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing "B" version will both be able to carry out all their missions without correcting the deficiency, the JPO said.

The potential damage from sustained high speeds would influence not only the F-35’s airframe and the low-observable coating that keeps it stealthy, but also the myriad antennas located on the back of the plane that are currently vulnerable to damage, according to documents exclusively obtained by Defense News.

The JPO had classified the issues for the "B" and "C" models as separate category 1 deficiencies, indicating in one document that the problem presents a challenge to accomplishing one of the key missions of the fighter jet. In this scale, category 1 represents the most serious type of deficiency.

While it may seem dire that an aircraft procured for flying at supersonic speeds will be unable to do so for extended periods, the F-35 may not need to do it that often.

For the F-35, as opposed to the F-22 where supersonic flight is baked into its tactics, the ability to fly supersonic is more of a “break glass in case of emergency” feature, said Bryan Clark, an analyst with the Hudson Institute and a retired naval officer. “Supersonic flight is not a big feature of the F-35,” Clark said. “It’s capable of it, but when you talk to F-35 pilots, they’ll say they’d fly supersonic in such limited times and cases that — while having the ability is nice because you never know when you are going to need to run away from something very fast — it’s just not a main feature for their tactics.”

In fact, going supersonic obviates the main advantages of the F-35, Clark said. “It sort of defeats all the main advantages of the F-35,” he explained. “It takes you out of stealthiness, it burns gas like crazy so you lose the range benefits of a single engine and larger fuel tank. When you go into afterburner, you are heating up the outside of your aircraft.” That creates all kinds of signatures that can be detected by an adversary, Clark said....

...The issue is compounded for the Navy, which must operate forward for months at a time, because any significant issues with coatings or the structure of aircraft would require a depot-level repair. And so a damaged aircraft would remain damaged until its host ship returns to home port, reducing the combat effectiveness of the air wing. [duh - every naval aircraft faces this & other issues for various reasons - sometimes replacement aircraft are flown out to the carrier]

“We might have to be operating at sea for eight months, so if you damage something on week one, guess what? It’s damaged for the rest of the deployment,” the aviator said. “And it affects your ability to evade detection by the enemy — you just degraded that asset permanently until you can get it somewhere where it can be fixed, at great expense and time.”

Other deficiencies [How GREEN is my GLOW & Tired TYRES damaging Hydraulics & Cold Battered Batteries explained]

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04 ... c-flights/

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2020, 23:46
by quicksilver
So...having missed the reality on this issue when they brought it up last summer, they attempt to double down by saying that it won’t be fixed. (Hint: It’s such a problem that it won’t be fixed. Cue the ‘putting our young men and women at grave risk’ meme).

And then they quote a (smart) CSBA guy...who was a submariner.

Humor is good for the soul on a Friday afternoon. :wink:

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 00:13
by marauder2048
quicksilver wrote:So...having missed the reality on this issue when they brought it up last summer, they attempt to double down by saying that it won’t be fixed. (Hint: It’s such a problem that it won’t be fixed. Cue the ‘putting our young men and women at grave risk’ meme).

And then they quote a (smart) CSBA guy...who was a submariner.

Humor is good for the soul on a Friday afternoon. :wink:



I just love documents that we can't read which are excerpted or shown to anonymous or
unqualified people for analysis. All of which results in a "new" story that confirms that
JPO didn't do what they said they weren't going to do.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 03:20
by commisar
Anyone heard anything regarding this:

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04 ... c-flights/

Looks like at certain altitudes, the stealth coating on the B and C models is damaged when going supersonic for an extended period of time.

Zero mention of the A having an issue.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 03:34
by spazsinbad
commisar wrote:Anyone heard anything regarding this:
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04 ... c-flights/
Looks like at certain altitudes, the stealth coating on the B and C models is damaged when going supersonic for an extended period of time. Zero mention of the A having an issue.

Posted above today and posted earlier from DEFneuz - just a usual repeat from INSINNER - a speciality of de house.

GOto Start of this thread and beyond: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=55673 one of 13 DEAFiciencies: 12 Jun 2019
" • Supersonic flight in excess of Mach 1.2 can cause structural damage and blistering to the stealth coating of the F-35B and F-35C."

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 03:44
by Dragon029
commisar wrote:Anyone heard anything regarding this:

It's talked about in the original article that this thread is based on; a single F-35B and a single F-35C, back in somewhere around 2013 or so, in a single flight each, experienced damage to the skin of their tails when using their afterburners for extended periods in order to fly at supersonic speeds and high altitudes, near the edge of their flight envelope. The test team tried to replicate this issue, but to date no other F-35 has ever received that damage.

Because Lockheed and the JPO don't know exactly why the damage occurred (but didn't occur in later tests), they can't guarantee it won't ever happen again, and so it was made into a pair of Category 1 deficiencies (one for the B, one for the C) and a time limit on afterburner usage above certain Mach speeds has been put into place for pilots to abide by when combat doesn't necessitate it (there's no software limited preventing pilots from exceeding time limits if they feel it's necessary). F-35s have also since (back in like 2014 or 2015) received an upgrade to their stealth coating on those tail surfaces that face the afterburner plume, but again, they can't guarantee that this

Neither Lockheed nor the JPO are aware of any materials available today that would meet the stealth and thermal requirements needed to sufficiently guarantee that no harm would come from extended afterburner use, and so ultimately they've decided that it's not worth spending potentially hundreds of millions, or possibly billions of dollars on a wild goose chase for a material that might not yet be feasible.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 04:48
by wrightwing
Dragon029 wrote:
commisar wrote:Anyone heard anything regarding this:

It's talked about in the original article that this thread is based on; a single F-35B and a single F-35C, back in somewhere around 2013 or so, in a single flight each, experienced damage to the skin of their tails when using their afterburners for extended periods in order to fly at supersonic speeds and high altitudes, near the edge of their flight envelope. The test team tried to replicate this issue, but to date no other F-35 has ever received that damage.

Because Lockheed and the JPO don't know exactly why the damage occurred (but didn't occur in later tests), they can't guarantee it won't ever happen again, and so it was made into a pair of Category 1 deficiencies (one for the B, one for the C) and a time limit on afterburner usage above certain Mach speeds has been put into place for pilots to abide by when combat doesn't necessitate it (there's no software limited preventing pilots from exceeding time limits if they feel it's necessary). F-35s have also since (back in like 2014 or 2015) received an upgrade to their stealth coating on those tail surfaces that face the afterburner plume, but again, they can't guarantee that this

Neither Lockheed nor the JPO are aware of any materials available today that would meet the stealth and thermal requirements needed to sufficiently guarantee that no harm would come from extended afterburner use, and so ultimately they've decided that it's not worth spending potentially hundreds of millions, or possibly billions of dollars on a wild goose chase for a material that might not yet be feasible.

It was one incident apiece for the B/C. It occurred ~50,000' and above M1.2. Changes were made to the jets, and they were unable to recreate the phenomenon in further tests. The phenomenon has never been seen in fleet jets.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 11:29
by aussiebloke
For the F-35, as opposed to the F-22 where supersonic flight is baked into its tactics, the ability to fly supersonic is more of a “break glass in case of emergency” feature, said Bryan Clark, an analyst with the Hudson Institute and a retired naval officer. “Supersonic flight is not a big feature of the F-35,” Clark said. “It’s capable of it, but when you talk to F-35 pilots, they’ll say they’d fly supersonic in such limited times and cases that — while having the ability is nice because you never know when you are going to need to run away from something very fast — it’s just not a main feature for their tactics.”

In fact, going supersonic obviates the main advantages of the F-35, Clark said. “It sort of defeats all the main advantages of the F-35,” he explained. “It takes you out of stealthiness, it burns gas like crazy so you lose the range benefits of a single engine and larger fuel tank. When you go into afterburner, you are heating up the outside of your aircraft.” That creates all kinds of signatures that can be detected by an adversary, Clark said....


Clark has been dismissed in these comments as a “submariner” and as an “unqualified” person. I am also an unqualified person so I have to ask where does his analysis break down? To me it seems a reasonable assessment.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 11:54
by spazsinbad

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 13:27
by lukfi
So the Navy doesn't consider supersonic flight very important, they are content with not fixing the issue and actually haven't been able to replicate it a second time. Why did they file it as a Category 1 deficiency in the first place?

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 15:41
by geforcerfx
lukfi wrote:So the Navy doesn't consider supersonic flight very important, they are content with not fixing the issue and actually haven't been able to replicate it a second time. Why did they file it as a Category 1 deficiency in the first place?


The Navy didn't, the JPO did.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 16:00
by commisar
Dragon029 wrote:
commisar wrote:Anyone heard anything regarding this:

It's talked about in the original article that this thread is based on; a single F-35B and a single F-35C, back in somewhere around 2013 or so, in a single flight each, experienced damage to the skin of their tails when using their afterburners for extended periods in order to fly at supersonic speeds and high altitudes, near the edge of their flight envelope. The test team tried to replicate this issue, but to date no other F-35 has ever received that damage.

Because Lockheed and the JPO don't know exactly why the damage occurred (but didn't occur in later tests), they can't guarantee it won't ever happen again, and so it was made into a pair of Category 1 deficiencies (one for the B, one for the C) and a time limit on afterburner usage above certain Mach speeds has been put into place for pilots to abide by when combat doesn't necessitate it (there's no software limited preventing pilots from exceeding time limits if they feel it's necessary). F-35s have also since (back in like 2014 or 2015) received an upgrade to their stealth coating on those tail surfaces that face the afterburner plume, but again, they can't guarantee that this

Neither Lockheed nor the JPO are aware of any materials available today that would meet the stealth and thermal requirements needed to sufficiently guarantee that no harm would come from extended afterburner use, and so ultimately they've decided that it's not worth spending potentially hundreds of millions, or possibly billions of dollars on a wild goose chase for a material that might not yet be feasible.



Thanks for this

Of course this kind of useful information is helpfully OMITTED from most of the junk tier reporting on the F-35.

Unlike here 8)

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 18:44
by quicksilver
I’ve met Bryan. He’s a very bright guy. But he knows as much about fighting jets as I know about fighting submarines.

Those who want to understand more should go back to the beginning of the thread and start with the reporting on ‘hidden troubles’ last summer.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 19:01
by aussiebloke
quicksilver wrote:I’ve met Bryan. He’s a very bright guy. But he knows as much about fighting jets as I know about fighting submarines.

Those who want to understand more should go back to the beginning of the thread and start with the reporting on ‘hidden troubles’ last summer.


Clark’s comments are distinct from the journalist who wrote the article. He is not just another mouthpiece reciting a list of “hidden troubles”. His comments specifically address the importance or otherwise of supersonic speeds to the effectiveness of how the F-35 will typically operate. Smart guys, particularly defense analysts, who don’t know anything about a topic should talk to those that do and form opinions accordingly. It isn’t who he is that is the issue but what he is saying. Is he wrong? If so why is he wrong?

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 19:07
by quicksilver
lukfi wrote:So the Navy doesn't consider supersonic flight very important, they are content with not fixing the issue and actually haven't been able to replicate it a second time. Why did they file it as a Category 1 deficiency in the first place?


Here’s generally how it goes — some years ago, DT pilot flies jet (in pursuit of some kind of supersonic test point(s)). Jet returns with damage to horizontal stab(s). Pilot writes test report for the flight, noting said damage. Confers w multi-discipline engineering team, they review the data, put into motion an EI (engineering investigation) to determine root cause and corrective action. Somewhere in this there is collective agreement that the problem and potential consequences are worthy of Cat 1 kind of problem.

At some point — after years of engineering work by some of the brightest and most experienced materials and aero guys in the world — they determined that the juice was not worth the cost of the squeeze. They’ve apparently chosen operational workarounds, the exact nature of which we do not know.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 19:11
by quicksilver
aussiebloke wrote:
quicksilver wrote:I’ve met Bryan. He’s a very bright guy. But he knows as much about fighting jets as I know about fighting submarines.

Those who want to understand more should go back to the beginning of the thread and start with the reporting on ‘hidden troubles’ last summer.


Clark’s comments are distinct from the journalist who wrote the article. He is not just another mouthpiece reciting a list of “hidden troubles”. His comments specifically address the importance or otherwise of supersonic speeds to the effectiveness of how the F-35 will typically operate. Smart guys, particularly defense analysts, who don’t know anything about a topic should talk to those that do and form opinions accordingly. It isn’t who he is that is the issue but what he is saying. Is he wrong? If so why is he wrong?


Without getting into tactics, characterization of supersonic flight as a ‘break glass...’ capability is wrong. Else why would it be so important to F-22 — which is also ‘stealthy.’

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 19:30
by quicksilver
Ref ‘operational workarounds’ — sometimes problems that were ‘deficiencies’ in flight test, become ‘caution’ or ‘warning’ or limitation entries NATOPS. We don’t know and aren’t likely to find out.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 20:13
by geforcerfx
quicksilver wrote:
Without getting into tactics, characterization of supersonic flight as a ‘break glass...’ capability is wrong. Else why would it be so important to F-22 — which is also ‘stealthy.’


Couldn't one argue that the F-35 and F-22 were designed with different main mission focus in mind, F-35 affordable strike fighter, F-22 top performance air supremacy aircraft?

Like you said earlier though we don't know the full restrictions is this a limited afterburner above 40,000ft thing like where the incidents happened? Or is this a anytime the Jets are above Mach 1.2 they are limited to 60 seconds of burner no matter the altitude. If it's the high altitude limitation I agree it's impact on the vast majority of the F-35 B & Can missions is insanely small. Also with it only affected the B & C that means 75% of the fleet still has no restrictions. I guess without knowing the full details of the limitations we will never know how gimped the time limit is. But looking at the F-35B which only has enough fuel for around 15min at full burner with Max internal a 60 second limit at altitude doesn't seem as limiting.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 20:22
by quicksilver
“We don’t know and aren’t likely to find out.“

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 21:41
by lukfi
geforcerfx wrote:Couldn't one argue that the F-35 and F-22 were designed with different main mission focus in mind, F-35 affordable strike fighter, F-22 top performance air supremacy aircraft?

In the past, the Navy had its own air superiority fighters, namely F-4 and F-14. I doubt they would just give up that ability. They may not always be backed up by F-22s from a nearby ground base.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 22:12
by juretrn
lukfi wrote:
geforcerfx wrote:Couldn't one argue that the F-35 and F-22 were designed with different main mission focus in mind, F-35 affordable strike fighter, F-22 top performance air supremacy aircraft?

In the past, the Navy had its own air superiority fighters, namely F-4 and F-14. I doubt they would just give up that ability. They may not always be backed up by F-22s from a nearby ground base.

They haven't had a dedicated fighter ever since the F-14 was retired...
If the F-18 is good enough for the job, so is the F-35. End of story.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2020, 22:27
by spazsinbad
DefNews RECYCLE their shite news all the time with some retorters notorious for doing so. An example from the past:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=55673&p=421722&hilit=extremely#p421722
________________________________________________________

ASLO (yes I know) go here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=55673&p=421684&hilit=comments#p421684
wot references:
Lockheed Martin Comments on Defense News Reporting 12 Jun 2019 LM PR
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lockhee ... -reporting

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2020, 09:02
by spazsinbad
The lemon is squeezed to turn molehills into mountains and it ain't finished yet the mountain has to come to whomever.
Five F-35 issues have been downgraded, but they remain unsolved
24 Apr 2020 Aaron Mehta, Valerie Insinna, and David B. Larter

"WASHINGTON — The F-35 Joint Program Office has put in place stopgap fixes for five key technical flaws plaguing America’s top-end fighter jet, but the problems have not been completely eliminated. Last June, Defense News reported exclusive details about 13 major technical issues, known as category 1 deficiencies, impacting the F-35. The JPO has since quietly downgraded five of those issues to the lesser category 2....

...Aside from a few basic statements on which projects were downgraded to CAT 2, a JPO spokesperson said the office “cannot disclose any information about how these deficiencies were resolved or downgraded due to their security classification.”… [then some lahdedah about some of 'em]

The F-35B and F-35C experienced incongruous lateral and longitudinal control response above a 20-degree angle of attack.
One of the most eye-opening issues identified in the initial report was that the F-35B and F-35C models used by the Marine Corps and Navy become difficult to control when operating above a 20-degree angle of attack — which would be seen in the extreme maneuvers a pilot might use in a dogfight or while avoiding a missile. Pilots reported the aircraft experiencing unpredictable changes in pitch, as well as erratic yaw and rolling motions when coming in at that angle of attack..

“It has random oscillations, pitch and yaw issues above [its] 20-[degree angle of attack]," a longtime naval aviator told Defense News last year. "[So] if I had to perform the aircraft — if I had to maneuver to defeat a missile, maneuver to fight another aircraft, the plane could have issues moving. And if I turn around aggressively and get away from these guys and use the afterburner, [the horizontal tail and tail boom] start to melt or have issues.”

The issue was important enough that it accounted for two CAT 1 issues, one each for the two variants impacted by the design issue. However, the JPO downgraded this issue to a CAT 2 on May 28, 2019, for the F-35C and on July 8, 2019, for the F-35B. The solution involves “improvements in flying qualities that were implemented in software. The improvements provide pilots with an intuitive reference indication for AOA [angle of attack], which allows pilots to more quickly optimize lateral maneuvering during air-to-air maneuvering. These software improvements have been released to all F-35 operators.”

There were unanticipated thrust limits in jetborne flight on hot days. [earlier story 12 Jun 2019: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06 ... ironments/ ]
This particular issue only occurred once, but was so significant that it was identified in the original document as the “No. 1 priority” for the Marine Corps. The issue was identified aboard the amphibious assault ship Essex, where a Marine pilot performed what is known as a “mode four” [STOVL] operation.

The engine — working hard on a day [the little engine that could - I think I can I think I can I think I can] that temperatures cracked 90 degrees Fahrenheit while trying to lift a plane that was heavier than most returning to base — wouldn’t generate the needed thrust for a safe, ideal landing. The pilot managed to land, but the issue set off alarm bells in the Marine aviation community.

The JPO initially expected a fix for this issue to be out sometime in 2019, but it wasn’t until March 2020 that a mix of nondescript “software updates and procedural adjustments” brought the “propulsion system performance back to original specified performance levels.” [phew]

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden- ... -unsolved/

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2020, 09:16
by spazsinbad
The Pentagon has cut the number of serious F-35 technical flaws in half
24 Apr 2020 Valerie Insinna

"[repeat of stuff repeated again here as usual] [then]… "Aside from four classified problems, there remain three open category 1 deficiencies in need of a fix. There are myriad reasons for that, the program office stated.

“Reasons for delayed issue closure vary according to the complexity of the solution and the availability of test assets needed to verify the solution,” the JPO said. “The U.S. services fund the F-35 program to address a prioritized set of DRs [deficiency reports], while at the same time, develop new capabilities. It is likely that some low-priority DRs will never be resolved because of their minor impact on F-35 fleet operations does not justify the cost of resolution."

The F-35 program office provided some details on the path forward for resolving these technical flaws, but noted that many details regarding those plans remain classified:

Spikes in the F-35 cockpit’s cabin pressure have been known to cause barotrauma, or extreme ear and sinus pain.
This problem was documented when two Air Force pilots, flying older versions of the F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing model, experienced ear and sinus pain that they described as “excruciating, causing loss of in-flight situational awareness, with effects lasting for months,” according to documents obtained by Defense News. The physiological event is known by the medical term barotrauma.

The F-35 Joint Program Office believes barotrauma in the jet is caused when sensors on the outer mold line of the aircraft detect “rapidly changing static pressures” that, in turn, drive very quick changes of the cockpit pressure regulator valve.

Lockheed Martin has tested a fix that proved to be successful in a laboratory setting, Lockheed program head Greg Ulmer said last year. But flight testing of that improvement has not occurred, slowing the pace of a solution. The F-35 program office now says flight testing of a new cockpit pressure regulation system is planned for mid-2020. If all goes well, the deficiency should be completely eliminated in 2021.

On nights with little starlight, the night vision camera sometimes displays green striations that make it difficult for all F-35 variants to see the horizon or to land on ships.
On nights where there is little ambient light, horizontal green lines sometimes appear on the night vision camera feed, obscuring the horizon and making landing on a ship more dangerous. The problem is different than the notorious “green glow” issue, [NO MENTION THAT IS HAS BEEN FIXED] caused when the F-35 helmet-mounted display’s LED lights produce a greenish luminescence that inhibits a pilot’s ability to land on an aircraft carrier on nights with very little light.

At one point, both Lockheed and the government’s program office believed both problems could be solved by the F-35 Generation III helmet that the U.S. military began fielding last year. Although the program office no longer considers the “green glow” problem a deficiency, [that it has been FIXED] it appears that the new helmet did not completely solve the night vision camera issue. The program office told Defense News that it intends to develop software improvements and test them in flight later this year, but the deficiency will not be considered “closed” until at least 2021. [then more about 'sea search radar']…

‘A line in the sand’
Although Defense Department and military leaders have criticized the F-35 program for high operations and sustainment costs, the operational community has rallied around the performance of the jet, praising its advanced computing capability that allows the aircraft to mesh together data from different sensors and provide a more complete picture of enemy threats.

Brig. Gen. David Abba, who leads the Air Force’s F-35 integration office, said in March that he was comfortable with the path forward to correct open deficiencies, downplaying the impact of those issues on daily operations. “Is it important to hold folks’ feet to the fire and make sure that we’re delivering on the capabilities that we need? Yes,” he said. But, he added, it’s also difficult to balance the need to meet a stated technical requirement against the reality of a fielded technology that may already be performing well in daily operations.

“That’s the crux of the acquisition and the delivery problem that we have,” Abba said. “When we say ‘I need this to work exactly like this,’ I’m drawing a line in the sand. If I’m a half degree on one side of that line versus the other, is it really that different? That’s where the art comes in.”

“We’ve got to kind of get over ourselves a little bit and acknowledge that we never field perfect weapon systems,” he continued. “I don’t want to diminish the fact that it’s critical that we get after open DRs, but every weapon system in the United States Air Force — and frankly around the planet — has open deficiencies. What matters is the severity of those deficiencies and ensuring that we have a robust process between government and industry to triage those and deal with them appropriately.”"

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden- ... s-in-half/

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2020, 15:22
by quicksilver
aah...wisdom from the one-star —

“That’s the crux of the acquisition and the delivery problem that we have,” Abba said. “When we say ‘I need this to work exactly like this,’ I’m drawing a line in the sand. If I’m a half degree on one side of that line versus the other, is it really that different? That’s where the art comes in.”

“We’ve got to kind of get over ourselves a little bit and acknowledge that we never field perfect weapon systems,” he continued. “I don’t want to diminish the fact that it’s critical that we get after open DRs, but every weapon system in the United States Air Force — and frankly around the planet — has open deficiencies. What matters is the severity of those deficiencies and ensuring that we have a robust process between government and industry to triage those and deal with them appropriately.”"
(My emphasis added)

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2020, 15:38
by quicksilver
“On nights with little starlight, the night vision camera sometimes displays green striations that make it difficult for all F-35 variants to see the horizon or to land on ships. On nights where there is little ambient light, horizontal green lines sometimes appear on the night vision camera feed, obscuring the horizon and making landing on a ship more dangerous.”

News flash: approach and landing a STOVL jet in starlight (or starlight overcast :shock: ) using any kind of nvd is seriously difficult. Tends to generate lotsa ‘noise’ in the image, thereby adding to the already considerable challenge of the endeavor. Welcome aboard guys.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2020, 05:16
by spazsinbad
F-35’s Image as $428 Billion Bundle of Flaws Improved by Fixes [BEST READ AT SOURCE becuz lots of details missing]
11 May 2020 Anthony Capaccio

- "Top dangers to pilots resolved as are 90% of top mission risks

--GAO analyst says Pentagon focused on what most needed fixing


The F-35 fighter jet is starting to outlive its reputation as a $428 billion bundle of flawed hardware and buggy software: Lockheed Martin Corp. and the military have eliminated all of the deficiencies believed to endanger pilots and about 90% of other serious flaws that could hamper missions. That’s down from 111 “Category 1” safety-of-flight and mission-impeding deficiencies in January 2018, according to Defense Department data compiled by the Government Accountability Office.

The improvements may be critical to reassuring lawmakers and U.S. allies buying the F-35 that the costliest U.S. weapons system is worth its price tag, especially as pressure builds to reduce government spending after the response to the Covid-19 pandemic escalates budget deficits. The aircraft is already being operated by forces in the U.S., U.K., Israel, Japan, South Korea and Australia.

The Defense Department’s F-35 program office has “done a good job at working” with the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps “to really prioritize what needs to get fixed versus what would be just a helpful thing to the pilot -- getting to the actual things they need to get at,” Jon Ludwigson, the GAO’s top F-35 analyst, said in an interview. He said “they have procedures in place to work around” the remaining flaws.

The last “Category 1A” deficiency that could endanger pilots was deemed corrected in mid-November. Now, Lockheed and the Pentagon are resolving eight remaining “Category 1B” deficiencies that pose a “critical impact on mission readiness.” Five of those are expected to be completed and verified by December, the program office said....[then hoohaa about 'deficiencies - not flaws or whatever]

...Remaining Flaws
The remaining serious deficiencies include excessive pressure in the cabin that could injure pilots’ ears, obscured night-vision camera images under some conditions and limited radar sea-searching capability. The program office anticipates resolving the first two matters next year and the radar issue in 2024....

...Beyond the eight most serious outstanding flaws, the F-35 program still faces 860 lesser software and hardware deficiencies, of which 104 are considered fixed but with verification pending. The remainder have a fix under investigation, in the works or are deemed less critical “mission enhancements” that don’t need immediate attention, according to the program office. That’s up from 855 in January 2018. About 85% are software-related...."

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... d-by-fixes

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2020, 13:43
by lbk000
I guess they don't get paid if they just call them software bugs.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2020, 17:26
by doge
spazsinbad wrote:
F-35’s Image as $428 Billion Bundle of Flaws Improved by Fixes [BEST READ AT SOURCE becuz lots of details missing]
11 May 2020 Anthony Capaccio
- "Top dangers to pilots resolved as are 90% of top mission risks
--GAO analyst says Pentagon focused on what most needed fixing


Many improvements! :applause:

Given that Bloomberg has written many articles criticizing the F-35 over the years, to Me this looks like the pretty F-35 favorable article. (In relative terms.) 8)
Bloomberg, What’s going on !? :doh:

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2020, 20:44
by iwind
The F-35 is poised and ready for any environment, including sustained supersonic flight.
https://twitter.com/lmnews/status/12562 ... 01543?s=20
Image

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2020, 15:23
by notam123
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 45.article

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II’s modernisation is two years behind schedule and its cost has risen by $1.5 billion.

The Block 4 upgrade - a modernisation of the relatively new stealth fighter’s software and hardware - was initially to be delivered by 2024, but now will not be handed over until 2026, according to a report released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on 12 May.

USAF Lockheed Martin F-35A taking off from an air base in Spain c USAF

Source: US Air Force

USAF Lockheed Martin F-35A taking off from an air base in Spain

Problems with the programme also pushed up the cost on the modernisation effort to an estimated $12.1 billion, says GAO. What’s more, the government agency says that estimate doesn’t fully account for the total cost of the initiative as the Department of Defense (DoD) has excluded spending prior to 2018 and projected spending after 2024 in its count.

“Ultimately, without a complete understanding of Block 4 costs, the programme could face additional cost growth, which will be hard to track without a complete cost baseline,” says the agency. “The lack of a complete cost baseline hinders insight and oversight into the programme’s costs, plans, and progress to date and going forward.”

In response, the F-35 Joint Program Office says it plans to start including Block 4’s total costs in future accounting.

In January 2018, Joint Program Office rolled out a new strategy for handling software and hardware changes to the F-35, including Block 4 upgrades, such as avionics changes, electronic warfare updates, radar enhancements and integration of new weapons. The incremental strategy is called Continuous Capability Development and Delivery and is based on agile software development methods which are prominent among Silicon Valley technology companies. Lockheed Martin touted the method and claimed it would reduce software development problems.

“With this approach, the programme plans to deliver capabilities to the warfighter faster than it did during the baseline development program,” explains GAO. “For example, rather than take years to develop and deliver all the required capabilities to the warfighter, the program intends to incrementally develop, test, and deliver small groups of capabilities every six months.”

However, even with bite-sized tasks on its plate Lockheed Martin was unable to deliver over the past two years.

“According to the plan outlined in its May 2019 report to Congress, the F-35 programme was going to deliver eight Block 4 capabilities in 2019. However, the programme delivered only one—a software capability called the Auto Ground-Collision Avoidance System (Auto GCAS),” says GAO. “This capability enables the aircraft to perform an automatic recovery when it predicts that the aircraft will strike the ground. This was ahead of schedule as the programme had originally planned to deliver this capability after 2019.”

Development of the other seven capabilities is taking longer than planned and now the programme anticipates their delivery in 2020. Auto GCAS is not unique to the F-35 and was first fielded in the Lockheed Martin F-16.

Despite issues with Block 4, the Joint Program Office claims the software has “demonstrated the capability and stability to execute all required missions”.

For its part, Lockheed Martin claims it is seeing progress. “Lockheed Martin is working closely with the F-35 Joint Program Office to ensure the F-35 programme continues to mature and provide the warfighter the game changing capability they have already effectively employed in combat,” says the company.

Update: The article was changed on 13 May to clarify that the Joint Program Office formally led the rollout of Continuous Capability Development and Delivery in coordination with Lockheed Martin, which has adopted and endorsed the process.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2020, 10:04
by timmymagic
I don't think many people have registered just how bad this is....Block IV won't be ready until 2026...and if anyone thinks that date won't slip further to the right over the next 6 years is deluding themselves. It's a disaster. And you have to genuinely wonder if LM and the JPO have the competence and capability to attempt to reverse the slide, or even stop it, given the failure of their attempt to go 'agile' over the last 2 years.

In practice for most F-35 users this means their new, very expensive fighter aircraft will not be fully operational with their choice of weapons until 2028 at the earliest. Or the capabilities that they were banking on. For example the UK will find itself restricted to legacy Asraam, Amraam C-5/D and Paveway IV 500lber's for the next 8 years. Thats not a full combat capability. 2024 was bad enough, particularly given the number of munitions that have already been dropped from the original intent.

It also means that export sales of weapons developed for Block IV integration will be restricted to a limited number of US weapons. So that's Norway pissed off due to lack of JSM integration and the UK pissed off as they can't integrate Asraam CSP, Meteor, Spear, Spear EW, SpearGlide and Paveway Penetrator.

It's been on the cards for a while but I think this finally puts the nail in the coffin of any UK orders beyond 70ish at most. The dates now overlap too heavily with the Tempest programme. I suspect that other nations will also begin to re-examine their long term orders where they have potential alternatives. Many are already in the position of waiting for FRP to be agreed, which seems to drag on and on. Japan, Italy and South Korea being the most obvious. COVID-19 effects won't help along with a general desire across the western aligned world to have more sovereign capability/capacity.

I've always been a supporter of the F-35 programme...although truth be told I always preferred the MDD/Northrop/BAE proposal, but I'm beginning to be a little doubtful and no amount of spin from the JPO or LM will change that, things need to be accelerated and delivered earlier. Results matter not words. And it needs to happen without massive cost increases...I'm afraid the current President's words aren't helping either...

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2020, 00:48
by smsgtmac
timmymagic wrote:I don't think many people have registered just how bad this is....

...In practice for most F-35 users this means their new, very expensive fighter aircraft will not be fully operational with their choice of weapons until 2028 at the earliest. Or the capabilities that they were banking on. For example the UK will find itself restricted to legacy Asraam, Amraam C-5/D and Paveway IV 500lber's for the next 8 years. Thats not a full combat capability. 2024 was bad enough, particularly given the number of munitions that have already been dropped from the original intent.


Oh FFS. All airplanes reach "full" capability the day after they stop being upgraded at the end of their operational life. FOC capability IS Block 3. Block 4 and subsequent blocks are NEW capabilities. With Blk 3 having more advanced weapon capability than any other baseline fighter design in history, it is hardly parity-challenged by any other design for the foreseeable future.

I can hardly wait for when Block 4/5/6 are fielded to hear the laments over not being 'FOC' until Block 5/6/7 because some enhancement or another was pushed back or cancelled.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2020, 01:31
by XanderCrews
timmymagic wrote:I don't think many people have registered just how bad this is....Block IV won't be ready until 2026...and if anyone thinks that date won't slip further to the right over the next 6 years is deluding themselves. It's a disaster. And you have to genuinely wonder if LM and the JPO have the competence and capability to attempt to reverse the slide, or even stop it, given the failure of their attempt to go 'agile' over the last 2 years.

In practice for most F-35 users this means their new, very expensive fighter aircraft will not be fully operational with their choice of weapons until 2028 at the earliest. Or the capabilities that they were banking on. For example the UK will find itself restricted to legacy Asraam, Amraam C-5/D and Paveway IV 500lber's for the next 8 years. Thats not a full combat capability. 2024 was bad enough, particularly given the number of munitions that have already been dropped from the original intent.

It also means that export sales of weapons developed for Block IV integration will be restricted to a limited number of US weapons. So that's Norway pissed off due to lack of JSM integration and the UK pissed off as they can't integrate Asraam CSP, Meteor, Spear, Spear EW, SpearGlide and Paveway Penetrator.

It's been on the cards for a while but I think this finally puts the nail in the coffin of any UK orders beyond 70ish at most. The dates now overlap too heavily with the Tempest programme. I suspect that other nations will also begin to re-examine their long term orders where they have potential alternatives. Many are already in the position of waiting for FRP to be agreed, which seems to drag on and on. Japan, Italy and South Korea being the most obvious. COVID-19 effects won't help along with a general desire across the western aligned world to have more sovereign capability/capacity.

I've always been a supporter of the F-35 programme...although truth be told I always preferred the MDD/Northrop/BAE proposal, but I'm beginning to be a little doubtful and no amount of spin from the JPO or LM will change that, things need to be accelerated and delivered earlier. Results matter not words. And it needs to happen without massive cost increases...I'm afraid the current President's words aren't helping either...


How long before Tempest is set on all the weapons you mention?? Or fully operational?

This is some top notch faux concern I will admit. If it's any consolation JPO and LM don''t care about your feelings.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2020, 14:24
by magitsu
smsgtmac wrote:Oh FFS. All airplanes reach "full" capability the day after they stop being upgraded at the end of their operational life. FOC capability IS Block 3. Block 4 and subsequent blocks are NEW capabilities. With Blk 3 having more advanced weapon capability than any other baseline fighter design in history, it is hardly parity-challenged by any other design for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, it's almost unbelievable how light in terms of weapons integrated some of the previous fighters have arrived.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2020, 16:38
by quicksilver
smsgtmac wrote:Oh FFS. All airplanes reach "full" capability the day after they stop being upgraded at the end of their operational life. FOC capability IS Block 3. Block 4 and subsequent blocks are NEW capabilities. With Blk 3 having more advanced weapon capability than any other baseline fighter design in history, it is hardly parity-challenged by any other design for the foreseeable future.

I can hardly wait for when Block 4/5/6 are fielded to hear the laments over not being 'FOC' until Block 5/6/7 because some enhancement or another was pushed back or cancelled.


Thank you.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2020, 19:27
by wrightwing
timmymagic wrote:I don't think many people have registered just how bad this is....Block IV won't be ready until 2026...and if anyone thinks that date won't slip further to the right over the next 6 years is deluding themselves. It's a disaster. And you have to genuinely wonder if LM and the JPO have the competence and capability to attempt to reverse the slide, or even stop it, given the failure of their attempt to go 'agile' over the last 2 years.

In practice for most F-35 users this means their new, very expensive fighter aircraft will not be fully operational with their choice of weapons until 2028 at the earliest. Or the capabilities that they were banking on. For example the UK will find itself restricted to legacy Asraam, Amraam C-5/D and Paveway IV 500lber's for the next 8 years. Thats not a full combat capability. 2024 was bad enough, particularly given the number of munitions that have already been dropped from the original intent.

It also means that export sales of weapons developed for Block IV integration will be restricted to a limited number of US weapons. So that's Norway pissed off due to lack of JSM integration and the UK pissed off as they can't integrate Asraam CSP, Meteor, Spear, Spear EW, SpearGlide and Paveway Penetrator.

It's been on the cards for a while but I think this finally puts the nail in the coffin of any UK orders beyond 70ish at most. The dates now overlap too heavily with the Tempest programme. I suspect that other nations will also begin to re-examine their long term orders where they have potential alternatives. Many are already in the position of waiting for FRP to be agreed, which seems to drag on and on. Japan, Italy and South Korea being the most obvious. COVID-19 effects won't help along with a general desire across the western aligned world to have more sovereign capability/capacity.

I've always been a supporter of the F-35 programme...although truth be told I always preferred the MDD/Northrop/BAE proposal, but I'm beginning to be a little doubtful and no amount of spin from the JPO or LM will change that, things need to be accelerated and delivered earlier. Results matter not words. And it needs to happen without massive cost increases...I'm afraid the current President's words aren't helping either...


That's not what was said at all. 2024 wasn't the introduction date of Block 4. Reading is fundamental.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2020, 20:59
by madrat
FFS, have some perspective. The globe literally ground to a halt for 60+ days and we are worried about slipping any schedules at all? Quite frankly they might slip and that is okay due to the scope of the program. The typical fighter at this early stage is a one-trick pony and we're crying that 2024 might slip to 2026 in your opinion? They have a sense or priorities right now and we don't need to delude ourselves into thinking Block IV has to be equivalent to an F-18E that has been around for decades at this point.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2020, 22:55
by aussiebloke
Here is an example of F-35 weapons integration anticipated to occur before 2026 (or even 2024 for that matter).

Raytheon expects a new flight test of its Joint Strike Missile (JSM), being developed in partnership with Norwegian firm Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, to happen later this year, says Kurt Neubauer, business development lead for Raytheon Air Warfare Systems......

“We expect the Royal Norwegian Air Force to declare IOC with JSM on their F-35As in 2023,” Neubauer said.


https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/fir ... -raytheon/

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2020, 23:24
by wrightwing
aussiebloke wrote:Here is an example of F-35 weapons integration anticipated to occur before 2026 (or even 2024 for that matter).

Raytheon expects a new flight test of its Joint Strike Missile (JSM), being developed in partnership with Norwegian firm Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, to happen later this year, says Kurt Neubauer, business development lead for Raytheon Air Warfare Systems......

“We expect the Royal Norwegian Air Force to declare IOC with JSM on their F-35As in 2023,” Neubauer said.


https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/fir ... -raytheon/

In addition to JSM, F-35s will be getting JSOW-ER, AARGM-ER/SiAW, GBU-53, 6 internal AAM, AIM-260, Meteor, ASRAAM, all before 2026, not to mention TR3 updates, Advanced EOTS, upgraded DAS, upgraded ASQ-239, new cockpit displays, etc...

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2020, 14:01
by mixelflick
No dount lots of "hidden troubles" in those too :)

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2020, 23:58
by ricnunes
smsgtmac wrote:
timmymagic wrote:I don't think many people have registered just how bad this is....

...In practice for most F-35 users this means their new, very expensive fighter aircraft will not be fully operational with their choice of weapons until 2028 at the earliest. Or the capabilities that they were banking on. For example the UK will find itself restricted to legacy Asraam, Amraam C-5/D and Paveway IV 500lber's for the next 8 years. Thats not a full combat capability. 2024 was bad enough, particularly given the number of munitions that have already been dropped from the original intent.


Oh FFS. All airplanes reach "full" capability the day after they stop being upgraded at the end of their operational life. FOC capability IS Block 3. Block 4 and subsequent blocks are NEW capabilities. With Blk 3 having more advanced weapon capability than any other baseline fighter design in history, it is hardly parity-challenged by any other design for the foreseeable future.

I can hardly wait for when Block 4/5/6 are fielded to hear the laments over not being 'FOC' until Block 5/6/7 because some enhancement or another was pushed back or cancelled.



I was planning to reply to timmymagic's post but I'm glad that I didn't because you replied much better (and in a much more 'compact' way) than I could.
Thanks smsgtmac for your post :thumb:

By the way and If I could, I would suggest any 'newbie' (and not only) to this forum should be 'forced' to read your post above before posting here.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2020, 22:11
by magitsu
The inside story of two supersonic flights that changed how America operates the F-35
The F-35 pilot who flew the two infamous supersonic missions that inflicted damage to the jet’s stealth coating and tail wants to set the record straight
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden- ... s-the-f-35

The Flynn (said pilot) part seems new, but the last bit seems like a rehash of the previous article, like we see commonly.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2020, 22:48
by quicksilver
What none of the reporting clarified was whether or not the restrictions imposed in flight test were permanently extended to cover routine training and fleet operations, post-SDD.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2020, 02:31
by Dragon029
From when they first reported on the issue they've said it applies to operational pilots, though they're free to exceed the restrictions if the situation requires it.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2020, 02:33
by XanderCrews
magitsu wrote:The inside story of two supersonic flights that changed how America operates the F-35
The F-35 pilot who flew the two infamous supersonic missions that inflicted damage to the jet’s stealth coating and tail wants to set the record straight
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden- ... s-the-f-35

The Flynn (said pilot) part seems new, but the last bit seems like a rehash of the previous article, like we see commonly.



"its basically rules for longevity and in Combat those rules go out the window" could be a military mantra for time immemorial.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2020, 21:24
by charlielima223
Any additional info about the gun? Last i heard the mis-allignment of the gun was causing cracks to the area around the gun port. I read that they got the gun realigned and that use of the gun for training and exercises are for limited use.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2020, 21:43
by quicksilver
charlielima223 wrote:Any additional info about the gun? Last i heard the mis-allignment of the gun was causing cracks to the area around the gun port. I read that they got the gun realigned and that use of the gun for training and exercises are for limited use.


You read? Then, tell us with a link.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2020, 23:05
by charlielima223
quicksilver wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:Any additional info about the gun? Last i heard the mis-allignment of the gun was causing cracks to the area around the gun port. I read that they got the gun realigned and that use of the gun for training and exercises are for limited use.


You read? Then, tell us with a link.


I dont know what your problem is with me so eat a...

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2020, 23:15
by spazsinbad
Looking in the sub forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics in the The GAU-22/A thread would be a start nestpas?

Quotes from last page 10: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=52628&start=135
"...The report is based on collected data from the period up to September 2019 and does not reflect work on bug fixes that have occurred in the period since then. One example of this is improved match safety with the built-in machine cannon. After software updates on this system and installing an aid to ensure proper positioning of the machine cannon, we see from tests in December that this provides better accuracy, the ministry said....

"..."The F-35 enterprise has made significant progress regarding the F-35 gun since the data used for the DOT&E report. In the F-35A integral gun, we have implemented software updates and installed a field gun alignment aid to ensure proper gun barrel position. We tested this in December and the results were improved accuracy."..."

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2020, 23:18
by quicksilver
charlielima223 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:Any additional info about the gun? Last i heard the mis-allignment of the gun was causing cracks to the area around the gun port. I read that they got the gun realigned and that use of the gun for training and exercises are for limited use.


You read? Then, tell us with a link.


I dont know what your problem is with me so eat a...


Ain’t nothin personal about it. If you read something, post it.

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2020, 22:12
by steve2267
quicksilver wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:Any additional info about the gun? Last i heard the mis-allignment of the gun was causing cracks to the area around the gun port. I read that they got the gun realigned and that use of the gun for training and exercises are for limited use.


You read? Then, tell us with a link.

...

quicksilver wrote:Ain’t nothin personal about it. If you read something, post it.


Sorry, I'm with QS here. When I read CL223's first post... I thought to myself, "that's news to me..." and "he read"... so where's the link? I'd like to read too...

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2020, 00:36
by Dragon029
charlielima223's just slightly misremembering the details; it's not (to our knowledge) that the misalignment is causing cracks or delamination in the composite skin and coatings, but rather LRIP-9 and newer F-35As are simply having a durability issue relating to the loads experienced (in terms of vibration and possibly overpressure) when the internal gun is fired, causing said cracks in the skin and coatings. This is covered in the Jan 2020 DOT&E report, but here's a web article about it: https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strik ... to-gun-use

Re: The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2020, 01:13
by spazsinbad
Then there is my post a few posts above last one on previous page this thread about the fix working well.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=55673&p=440246&hilit=armament#p440246