The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 851
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post15 Jun 2019, 14:20

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:
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1259
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post15 Jun 2019, 14:44

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.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2661
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post15 Jun 2019, 16:21

“...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...
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 851
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post15 Jun 2019, 17:00

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?
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2279
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post15 Jun 2019, 17:31

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...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2661
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post17 Jun 2019, 09:36

“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).
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3440
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post17 Jun 2019, 13:18

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...
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2661
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post17 Jun 2019, 13:58

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.
Last edited by quicksilver on 17 Jun 2019, 14:06, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1098
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post17 Jun 2019, 14:05

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. . . . . . "
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2661
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post17 Jun 2019, 14:29

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.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 983
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post17 Jun 2019, 14:50

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.
Last edited by optimist on 17 Jun 2019, 15:09, edited 2 times in total.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2153
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post17 Jun 2019, 14:55

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!
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3440
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 14:00

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...
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2153
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 14:28

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:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 983
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 15:02

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.
Aussie fanboy
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 24 guests