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.