Wapsi Square Forum

Okay, so this thing is already way over-budget, and the (current, made by people who have a vested interest in it sounding even marginally viable) estimate is that it will cost a trillion dollars over its (C,MBPWHAVIIISEMAV) projected lifespan, and the VTOL version can't land on concrete or asphalt runways, because the hot (understatement) downblast spalls the surface to destruction in a very short time, and can't land on carrier decks in VTOL mode without special titanium mats bing deployed, couldn't land on carrier decks, even though it was supposed to because the tailhook was placed in the wrong position relative to the gear to be able to catch the deck pennants (took 'em three years to solve that one) and had an engine fire problem that required grounding all of them ...
 
... is now a prima donna that calls the waiter and sends its fuel back if it's too warm?
 

The Daily Caller wrote: The USAF Has To Re-Paint Its Trucks Because The F-35 Can’t Fly On Warm Fuel

The F-35 can only fly on jet fuel under a certain temperature due to a range of heating issues attributed to the F-35B variant’s short takeoff and vertical landing engine. According to the USAF, the dark-green trucks that carry that fuel absorb too much heat from the sun to keep the planes in the sky.
 
That presents a serious logistical problem for an advanced multi-role fleet expected to maintain U.S. air superiority in areas of potential conflict such as the Middle East and South Pacific — areas with no shortage of sunlight.

For the time being the Air Force is addressing the issue by painting the tanker trailers of the trucks a bright reflective white to repel sunlight absorption. That presents a whole new problem for the safety of the trucks, which will be necessary to support the Joint Strike Fighter on forward deployments where large white tankers full of highly flammable fuel could make easy targets.

Another Daily Caller story, from 4 November:

Late last week the Pentagon announced the findings of an investigation into an F-35 engine fire earlier this year, which resulted in the third across-the-board grounding of the fleet since the Joint Strike Fighters began undergoing flight tests.
 
“The engine failure and subsequent fire were the result of micro fractures in one of the three-stage fan sections that compress air before it enters the engine,” the Department of Defense announced in a press release last Friday. “These sections are lined with a polyimide material that is designed to rub against the fan blades to reduce pressure loss.”

In the case of the F-35 in question, the third fan was rubbed “in excess of tolerance” while executing maneuvers weeks before the failure, heating the blades to 1,900 degrees, or 900 more than expected. The rubbing caused fractures in the titanium component of the rotor, which grew over the weeks before the June runway fire.

"That caused that rotor to liberate from the airplane," Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher C. Bogdan said. ”The fire was caused not by the engine, but by the pieces of the engine that flew out through the aft upper fuselage fuel tank."

Yeah, it wasn't the engine, it was pieces of the engine. That makes all the difference, right?

Did General Bogdan ever hear the story about the Ancient Literature professor who devoted thirty years to proving that The Odyssey wasn't composed by Homer, but by a different Greek of the same name?

AnotherFairportfan wrote:

"That caused that rotor to liberate from the airplane," Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher C. Bogdan said. ”The fire was caused not by the engine, but by the pieces of the engine that flew out through the aft upper fuselage fuel tank."

Yeah, it wasn't the engine, it was pieces of the engine. That makes all the difference, right?

actually, Yes, yes it does make a difference. if the fire were to have been caused by XYZ in the engine ITSELF, then they have serious redesigning of said engine to do to fix THAT issue *in addition to* the problem of the *excessive wearing" bit... BUT, because the fire was caused by the shrapnel of the engine pieces puncturing the fuel tank, they *really* only have ONE problem to fix, that being the cause of the wearing that sent those pieces flying off the engine bits in the first place... so, while that engine design IS screwed up (for whatever reason) it's not as bad as having TWO problems at the same time to fix... that simplifies things a considerable amount, relatively speaking that is.

scantrontb wrote:

AnotherFairportfan wrote:

"That caused that rotor to liberate from the airplane," Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher C. Bogdan said. ”The fire was caused not by the engine, but by the pieces of the engine that flew out through the aft upper fuselage fuel tank."

Yeah, it wasn't the engine, it was pieces of the engine. That makes all the difference, right?

actually, Yes, yes it does make a difference. if the fire were to have been caused by XYZ in the engine ITSELF, then they have serious redesigning of said engine to do to fix THAT issue *in addition to* the problem of the *excessive wearing" bit... BUT, because the fire was caused by the shrapnel of the engine pieces puncturing the fuel tank, they *really* only have ONE problem to fix, that being the cause of the wearing that sent those pieces flying off the engine bits in the first place... so, while that engine design IS screwed up (for whatever reason) it's not as bad as having TWO problems at the same time to fix... that simplifies things a considerable amount, relatively speaking that is.

Dunno - i think the report said that the cause of the excessive rubbing was high-G maneuvers at high speeds, which nobody ever expects a supersonic strike/air superiority fight to do, right?

From a very long piece i did for an apazine, i herewith extract partial lists of problems before this one:

In November 2011, a Pentagon study team identified the following issues:
 The helmet-mounted display system does not work properly.
 The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard.
 The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service.
 The F-35C's arresting hook does not work.
 Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth.[165]
 The wing buffet is worse than previously reported.
 The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan.
 The flight test program has yet to explore the most challenging areas.
 The software development is behind schedule.
 The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, not properly balanced for VTOL operations.
 There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft.
 The automated logistics information system is partially developed.
 The lightning protection on the F-35 is uncertified, with areas of concern.

and

In March 2013, USAF test pilots, flying with pre-operational software that did not utilize the all-aspect infrared AAQ-37 DAS sensor, noted a lack of visibility from the F-35 cockpit during evaluation flights which would get them consistently shot down in combat. Defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler concluded from flight evaluation reports that the F-35A "is flawed beyond redemption"; in response, program manager Bogdan suggested that pilots worried about being shot down should fly cargo aircraft instead. The same report found (in addition to the usual problems with the aircraft listed above):

 Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training.
 Ejection seat may fail causing pilot fatality.
 Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touch screen controls.
 The radar performs poorly or not at all.
 Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified.
 Maintenance tools do not work.

and

A 2014 Pentagon report found these additional problems:
 Only a third of the fleet is airworthy.
 The Inertial navigation system does not work.
 There is an unknown bug with the AMRAAM.
 DAS confuses the aircraft's own flare launches with incoming missiles.
 A single well placed bullet can render the F-35B's vertical landing capabilities useless.

And then there's this. I said it can't be operated VTOL on concrete or asphalt runways - Navy engineers said (as early as 2009)

The main engine exhaust, the engineers said, was hot and energetic enough to have a 50% chance of spalling concrete on the first VL. (“Spalling” occurs when water in the concrete boils faster than it can escape, and steam blows flakes away from the surface.)

The mats mentioned to let it operate off carriers can also be used on land - all yopu need to do is install them on those forward operational fields you're going to use ... except that

The Marines could use AM-2 landing pads. But AM-2 is not a friend to the agility that justifies the F-35B over other forms of expeditionary airpower. An Air Force study calls it “slow to install, difficult to repair, (with) very poor air-transportability characteristics.” A single 100- by 100-foot VL pad weighs around 30 tons and comprises 400 pieces, each individually installed by two people.

{same article}

This thing is a logistic and operational disaster already in process of happening...

===========

I've pulled a PDF of that apazine piece, if you're interested.

Don't you just love an efficient over-site committee? (Yes my fangs just leak with sarcasm).
P.S. This is the same kind of stupidity that caused the Challenger to explode.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:

"That caused that rotor to liberate from the airplane," Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher C. Bogdan said.

Gotta love how he makes "It blowed up REAL GOOD!!" almost sound like it was supposed to do that.

Also, I'm now imagining that rotor screaming "FREEEEEDOM!!!" as it "liberates" from the airplane.

FWIW - My father was, among other duties after WWII, a test pilot, working on things from optical, navigation, and radio systems, to oddball structural tests (wings, landing gear, stores placement) and much more. What's going on with the F-35 was what went on with the F-22, F-18, F-16, F-15, F-14, F-4, F-111, F-117, B-2, B-52, B-47, etc, etc. Simply put: "New dog, old fleas."

Granted, the F-35 smacks of Camel by Committee, not to mention political whoopdiewhatsis (F-22 replacement), and is going the path of the F-111 and F-4 before it -- the One Size Fits All theory, a'la make a plane that does everything. And when it doesn't, you get more silliness like, say, retiring the A-10 and hanging a two ton, 30MM cannon on the F-16, which has neither loiter time, survey speed, or frame strength to allow repeated, accurate fire.

Politics -- what we do together to frack things up.

Bleah.

Common wisdom... that element that is not common in society and totally absent in civilian leadership... would dictate that if you design something that does more than one specific task, you risk it doing several things rather poorly. I have not studied the bird in question, but a quick survey of commentary here indicates that it has all the promise of a 'Flying Edsel'... having worn the uniform and seen firsthand some of the ridiculous rubbish that we were forced to use because of some pork-barreled political decision, the F-35 sounds like it has already devoured enough federal funding and needs to go away... when you throw money at a pile of shit, all you get is an expensive pile of shit.
ISIS is not developing a level of air power that should concern us- Russia is about to financially implode (again). China is doing their best to even MATCH our current level of air power. The only people who could seriously threaten our warbirds do so with ground-to-air tactics... and THOSE are easily neutralized in this day and age. If any of the aircraft manufacturers wish to build a better warbird, that is the responsibility of their OWN R&D department, NOT the taxpayer's wallets. If the USAF indeed COMMISSIONED the building of this ... trashmonster... perhaps they ought to take it to court for a refund- either that, or find the idiot(s) who insisted on more and more and more 'tricks' for this thing to do and put them where they cannot cause too much harm... perhaps short-order cooks at the Congressional cafeteria...

... just a thought...

Oh, aside from the other-engine debacle, almost all of the stupidity on offer here is that of the military. (Which is not to say that i consider the military stupid ... or stupider than, say, Congress.). This is the F111 writ larger and more disastrously stupidly expensive - except that the Air Force version of that bird eventually turned out to be fairly useful - though not, probably, to an extent that justified the costs of its development - and i doubt this pig ever will.

This thing sounds like the M-28 Davy Crockett nuclear recoilless rifle. Bad idea start to finish, with no ultimate utility.

I hate to think how many Warthogs (which would likely be more useful in the kind of war-fighting environment we're likely to encounter any time soon) you could build for the cost of just one of these.

Atomic wrote: Granted, the F-35 smacks of Camel by Committee, not to mention political whoopdiewhatsis (F-22 replacement), and is going the path of the F-111 and F-4 before it -- the One Size Fits All theory, a'la make a plane that does everything.

Actually, the F4 was designed for essentially a single mission - carrier-based fighter, and it performed that mission well, if not superlatively.

So well, in fact that the Air Force bought 'em with no modifications - including the tailhook, which the AF discovered made the aircraft very nice to operate in situations where the length of landing strips was constrained.

And this led, unfortunately, to the F111 project, which was supposed to be a joint fighter bomber for the USN and USAF ... and wound up pretty much unusable by the Navy (too heavy and too wide for carrier ops) and with a bad reputation with the Air Force, though that was more because of an engineering slip up than being inherently a bad design.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:This thing sounds like the M-28 Davy Crockett nuclear recoilless rifle. Bad idea start to finish, with no ultimate utility.

I'm reminded of the late 40's/early 50's Start of the Jet Age design issues. Basically, it was a Throw Spaghetti at the Wall and See What Sticks, which is where you came up with dogs like the B-45 Tornado, where in they conceptually hung jets on a generic medium bomber design (straight wing) and got it off the ground. It worked, but the concept was trash because they had so much more they could have done with the power available from jets. The B-47 was designed (thin swept wing) with the higher speeds and power of jets in mind, so it was better out of the box, though still a finicky bird -- it had the disadvantage of being the first of it's kind with associated teething problems. For example, on the first test flight, trying to land on Edwards dry lake, well, it wouldn't. It just kept flying. The Idle power of the six jets gave enough power to keep it skimming along in the ground effect, about 40 feet off the ground. Solution? Drag chute for landings. And then you had the conceptual follow-on, the B-58 Hustler which presumed speed would solve all the problems. Ahhh -- sorry, no.

So the Davy Crockett was just another piece of the era, and part of the strategy was to keep the other guys guessing what marvelous what-not they would be facing someday. Company/Platoon level Nukes were a serious consideration because it made for a serious threat (if it was workable!). The Soviets came up with some wild items as well, such as the Alfa-class attack submarine design. Very, very fast (40kt+), with a titanium hull for very deep diving (800m/1200ft+), but two crucial flaws: A molten metal cooled reactor (could not be shut down unless in port -- dockside heaters needed to restart it), and Titanium has a flex life, meaning the boat could only dive so many times before the hull cracked. A fearsome beast for the decade of service, but...

Latest Wonderful News concerning the F35:

New U.S. Stealth Jet Can’t Fire Its Gun Until 2019

America’s $400 billion Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35, is slated to join fighter squadrons next year—but missing software will render its 25mm cannon useless.

The Pentagon’s newest stealth jet, the nearly $400 billion Joint Strike Fighter, won’t be able to fire its gun during operational missions until 2019, three to four years after it becomes operational.

Even though the Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35, is supposed to join frontline U.S. Marine Corps fighter squadrons next year and Air Force units in 2016, the jet’s software does not yet have the ability to shoot its 25mm cannon. But even when the jet will be able to shoot its gun, the F-35 barely carries enough ammunition to make the weapon useful.

The JSF won’t be completely unarmed. It will still carry a pair of Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM long-range air-to-air missiles and a pair of bombs. Initially, it will be able to carry 1,000-pound satellite-guided bombs or 500-pound laser-guided weapons. But those weapons are of limited utility, especially during close-in fights.

“There will be no gun until [the Joint Strike Fighter’s Block] 3F [software], there is no software to support it now or for the next four-ish years,” said one Air Force official affiliated with the F-35 program. “Block 3F is slated for release in 2019, but who knows how much that will slip?”
 
{more}

The pilots can always throw hand grenades out the window when they run out of missiles.

"Take that, Red Baron!"

James Fallows has a long article about this kind of idiocy in The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/arc ... ry/383516/

Or perhaps a sharp pointed stick, or a piece of flint with a suitably-knapped sharp edge?

you know, a really cynical person would suggest that maybe everything on F-35 is working fine and it is 100% combat ready, and all these stories are just misinformation to get possible opponents to underestimate the plane .

however, anyone *THAT* cynical would be completely unbelieving that the people needed to be behind such a conspiracy are competent enough to pull it off so successfully as it seems

So - why Did they drop the F-22 again?

Seems like they just needed something to bitch about while the pork rolled on...

As i sort of remember it, the F22 had problems, too.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:As i sort of remember it, the F22 had problems, too.

kinda makes you wonder about the F-23 thru F-34 projects. what kind of problems did they have that the next "known" number (even with all of it's problems) was the only one they could show us in the public?

The numbers aren't assigned like that. If memory serves, they're related to bid numbers, not actual plane numbers.

I could be wrong, of course.

jwhouk wrote:The numbers aren't assigned like that. If memory serves, they're related to bid numbers, not actual plane numbers.

I could be wrong, of course.

i know, they also don't assign them sequentially due to "security" reasons. but it WAS a humorous thought in all the bleakness surrounding the screw ups on this one, in that the F-35 is BETTER than them, right?