Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical

2 fatal accidents out of 134 flights is a "catastrophic failure rate" of only 1.49%, not 40%.

Comparing the space shuttle to the F-35 is somewhat accurate to the reality of both.

The original concept behind the space shuttle was to have a reusable space vehicle which could bring down the cost of payloads down to only hundreds of dollars per kg, rather than thousands. That all went to hell once the operating and other upkeep costs were taken into consideration. That didn't change the fact that the shuttle was and still remains a remarkable spacecraft. With that huge payload bay and extensive crew capacity, it was a truly versatile machine.

The F-35 is much the same way, but it pretty much went over the top to meet all its requirements that it's expected to be significantly more expensive to build and operate than they had intended.

The Space Shuttle is considered by many to be one of the greatest engineering marvels in human history. If you think it was a failure I think you need to step back and recalibrate yourself.

So was Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose when it was built.

Marvelous engineering does not in and of itself guarantee against something being a boondoggle.

JL

So I guess by your definition the entire space program was a boondoggle. JFK's remarks about the space program have been forgotten.

You guess wrong. And nothing in my post suggests that as a reasonable inference. Much of what the US space program set out to do was stunningly successful. It's just that the Space Shuttle, in light of what was originally promised and expected, was not. Which is not to say that it didn't accomplish a great deal, but rather, that it cost an awful lot, and killed a lot of very brave people, to do what could have mostly been done much more cheaply and safely.

2 fatal accidents out of 134 flights is a "catastrophic failure rate" of only 1.49%, not 40%.

Correction: 2 fatal accidents out of 134 flights is a "catastrophic *MISSION* failure rate" of only 1.49%.


Five operational shuttles were built, and of those, two were totally destroyed because of flaws in the machines themselves. That makes the catastrophic failure rate of the vehicles a nice, round 40%.

Cheaper, probably.. safer, not likely.

Apollo program had 17 flights with one critical failure (Apollo 13) and one catastrophic failure (Apollo 1).

You may be right, but I suspect otherwise. For one thing, many of the Space Shuttle missions could have been just as effectively accomplished with unmanned vehicles, and with considerable savings. Savings that could have been used to fund even more missions and experiments. Or to develop safer and more cost-effective manned vehicles, for that matter.

In any case, your Apollo example is a bit of a non sequitur, given that Apollo was designed to perform a very different (and inherently more complex and hazardous) task than was the low Earth orbit- restricted shuttle. And the Apollo 1 tragedy was not an in-flight failure. The Soyuz program would be a more appropriate example (4 deaths in two incidents in 95 missions, with the last 40 yrs fatality-free)

Space shuttle was to keep NASA bureaucracy in business. There's a reason why so many launches are done with non-US boosters and why they wan to privatize much of NASA now.

I fail to see how any thing written lately applies to the F-35B vertical or not landings. WTF?

Correction: 2 fatal accidents out of 134 flights is a "catastrophic *MISSION* failure rate" of only 1.49%.


Five operational shuttles were built, and of those, two were totally destroyed because of flaws in the machines themselves. That makes the catastrophic failure rate of the vehicles a nice, round 40%.

Actually, neither of the shuttles that were lost were due to flaws in the shuttle. The first lost was as a result of an issue with the boosters, resulting in the explosion. The second shuttle that was lost, was due to damage to the tiles by debris, in the ascent.

Correction: 2 fatal accidents out of 134 flights is a "catastrophic *MISSION* failure rate" of only 1.49%.


Five operational shuttles were built, and of those, two were totally destroyed because of flaws in the machines themselves. That makes the catastrophic failure rate of the vehicles a nice, round 40%.

Actually, neither of the shuttles that were lost were due to flaws in the shuttle. The first lost was as a result of an issue with the boosters, resulting in the explosion. The second shuttle that was lost, was due to damage to the tiles by debris, in the ascent.

I said "machines' and 'vehicles', not 'shuttle' specifically. The entire assembly of shuttle, SRBs, and external fuel tank is the machine/vehicle, and furthermore, the debris that destroyed Columbia, was debris from the the fuel tank (foam insulation, IIRC). Which is part of the launch vehicle. And which was not designed to fall off, which suggests a 'flaw' to me...

Stop dragging threads off topic butters. This was an excellent and very informative thread right up until the moment you wandered.

The Canberra class landing helicopter dock has got a ramp, like the Spamish type.
Quite a nice ship.

Till so far not read Australie will order the F35B.
Either build with a ramp, suppose there is a intention to order the F35B in the future?
Would be nice. Australia has had experience with aircraft carriers (Skyhawk)

HMAS Melbourne Skyhawk OPS
Skyhawk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITMKiPdH ... re=related

Grumman Tracker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0a-EYVH ... page#t=41s

m, correct. The short answer is that for many years now the RAAF have been anticipating an order of a total of 100 F-35As. There are several threads about this topic. The very long thread here:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12631.html

mentions the possiblity that you mention but it was 'howled down' by 'some in the know' however I'll never say never myself.

What I anticipate is that once the big flat decks start visiting Australian capital cites and once USMC F-35Bs pay the LHDs a visit our country will wonder why we also do not have F-35Bs. In that case it is still unlikely that those LHDs would operate F-35Bs however in far furture we may see another LHD or two or even a spare CVF for that purpose. How likely that is depends on so many factors. If you are interested in the Fixed Wing Carrier world that ended in the early 1980s for the RAN FAA then just head to the website in my signature: www.a4ghistory.com Most of the videos at: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=bengello#g/u were put there by moi with the help of the chap who updates that site.

Many ex-A4G pilots went to the RN FAA to fly SHARS in the early 1980s when the 'fixed wing folded' - that was after my time there in the early 1970s in the heyday of that era with 2 batches of A4Gs arriving along with the S-2s to revive the fixed wing FAA that is today long been gone as mentioned. Good photo of a packed HMAS Melbourne on this page:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-15.html
___________________________

A new website has 50Mb PDF or video morsels for your delectation with the Korean War prop era about to be uploaded tomorrow:

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd63d6 ... 1.0&ppud=4

The Canberra class landing helicopter dock has got a ramp, like the Spamish type.
Quite a nice ship.

Till so far not read Australie will order the F35B.
Either build with a ramp, suppose there is a intention to order the F35B in the future?
Would be nice. Australia has had experience with aircraft carriers (Skyhawk)

HMAS Melbourne Skyhawk OPS
Skyhawk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITMKiPdH ... re=related

Grumman Tracker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0a-EYVH ... page#t=41s

The Juan Carlos was designed with the ski-ramp integrated into the bow rather than bolted on to maximize helicopter space (since it is a troop transport, not a carrier). It would have required redesigning the bow of the ship to remove, so the Aussies kept it with no plans to use it.

Yes that mantra can be repeated endlessly - but it remains only that - a mantra "no plan to use the ski jump". For a start any capable aircraft can use it. Other visiting STOVL aircraft can use it. It may be used in the future as mentioned. Just because there is no plan today does not mean there will not be a plan in a tomorrow. For example there was no plan to buy the former 'LARGS BAY' and lookee here we have it. There will be plans somewhere about lots of possibilities that may not see the light. But if you are comforted by 'no plan' then by all means repeat it.