F-35 "Will get pilots SHOT DOWN"

[iambecomelife]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/report-super-fighter-will-get-pilots-shot-down/

Strange that with all their funding & expertise they forget about simple things like being able to see outside the fighter's canopy.

And to those who say dogfighting is obsolete, look what happened to the USAF and USN in Vietnam? Neglecting dogfights because "missiles would take care of everything" was a grievous error. It probably cost several pilots their lives back then - I expect the same thing to happen once more.

There are other problems, too, like a visual display that's mega-expensive and mega-unreliable. My tax dollars at work! :shifty:

[Platapus]

I remember watching a documentary on pilot information overload. Even back in Viet Nam there were instances of pilots turning electronic stuff off so they could concentrate looking outside.

Who the hell was working the system requirements for the F-35? Probably the user requirements were overridden by political appointees. :/\\!!

Oh well, at least we found out about it before we wasted $1,000,000,000,000 on it.


oh :oops::o:stare:

[mookiemookie]

Why couldn't you mount a mini 360 degree camera on the top of the cockpit that feeds the video straight to a HUD display in the pilot's helmet? As he looks around, he sees the video feed coming from that direction. Heck, mount one to the underside of the plane too and have software stitch the video feeds into one cohesive display so the pilot could look in any direction and see his cockpit controls in front of him and the ground below him, beside him, behind him, etc. It'd be like he was flying in an invisible plane.

That'd be the way I'd solve that. But what do I know? :sunny:

[MH]

A lot has changed since then.
The philosophy is to make it as easy as possible for the pilot to digest the data hence the sensor fusion and easy to interpret mfd"s .
It is all about minimizing work loads.
Besides that we really know nothing about f35.
The article posted says nothing but draws big concoctions.

[Bilge_Rat]

omygod the pilot cant see out the back. :o

These F35 critics are hilarious....:haha:

name one single seat jet fighter where the pilot is able to check his own six while straped into his seat and wearing a flight helmet.

There is a technique for that, its called using your wingman...:ping:

[Seth8530]

I would not call the F-35 doomed to get pilots killed just because the currently in development helmet set still has some bugs. Neither would I call it doomed because part of the seat gets in the way of visibility. These are all things that are being worked on and fine tuned... Expensive... yes... Doomed to failure.. No.

[TLAM Strike]

Betcha it has better rear visibility than the MiG-21!

They had to put a damn periscope on that thing just so the pilot could check his '6'.

http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/4825/day01025.jpg

But its not like the MiG-21 was successful or anything; they only built 11,500 of the things!

[Jimbuna]

Cheapest option....add a rear tail gunner :)

[eddie]

Cheapest option....add a rear tail gunner :)

LOL!!!

[Red October1984]

Cheapest option....add a rear tail gunner :)

Haha! :har:

A tail gunner....that fires missiles.... :hmmm: We may have an idea here...

[em2nought]

Luckily for us we can't afford any, unfortunately that won't stop us. :D

[iambecomelife]

Betcha it has better rear visibility than the MiG-21!

They had to put a damn periscope on that thing just so the pilot could check his '6'.

http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/4825/day01025.jpg

But its not like the MiG-21 was successful or anything; they only built 11,500 of the things!

It's interesting you mention the MiG - 21. I read an American F-4 pilot's recollection of a dogfight in Vietnam; the MiG-21 pilot he fought kept swerving nervously because he could not get a good view of his "six". Maybe his model wasn't equipped with the periscope, or I guess he just panicked and forgot in the heat of battle? In the end, the MiG-21 was shot down.

I get pretty nervous myself when, in flight sims, I'm flying a "razorback" like the Bf-109, P-40, P-51B, etc. At least I can restart - unlike that poor MiG jockey...:-?

[TLAM Strike]

A tail gunner....that fires missiles.... :hmmm: We may have an idea here...

Flight of the Old Dog. :up:

[Stealhead]

name one single seat jet fighter where the pilot is able to check his own six while straped into his seat and wearing a flight helmet.



F-16,F-15,A-10,F/A-18,F-22,MiG-29,Su-27,Typhoon(the modern one),Rafale,Grippen and even the Harrier.

Don't forget that fighter pilots are in top shape and you are only needing to get glance of peripheral vision.Also in a dogfight you are always changing heading to make yourself a harder target and to allow checking of six.

[HunterICX]

Someone on your six? Well deal with it this way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQewKKBF_lA

:D

HunterICX

[Glock30Eric]

A new issue? Oh man just kill F-35 program!

Mordenize and reproduce A-10, F-15, F-16, F-18, and few more.

[Oberon]

I get pretty nervous myself when, in flight sims, I'm flying a "razorback" like the Bf-109, P-40, P-51B, etc. At least I can restart - unlike that poor MiG jockey...:-?

Not just you, I'm the same, I like the mirror on the Spitfires and Hurris (pretty sure the 109s got a mirror too but it's rarely modelled in sims)...but, as one guy once said, "If you can see the 109 in your mirror, it's already too late!" Weave, Weave, Weave, never stay straight and level in a combat situation for longer than a few seconds. I think that's just as true today as it was in 1940. :yep:

[Bilge_Rat]

F-16,F-15,A-10,F/A-18,F-22,MiG-29,Su-27,Typhoon(the modern one),Rafale,Grippen and even the Harrier.

wrong answer. it's not possible on any of them.

Now if you are suggesting that a pilot maintain straight and level 1g flight, unstrap himself from his seat, physically move his upper body out of his seat, twist his head right or left at a 90 degree angle and depending of what type helmet he is wearing he can spot a bandit 5 miles behind him with his peripheral vision......no, still not possible, especially since most modern air operations take place at NIGHT. :ping:

That article is just another hatchet piece, the F35 critics are realy getting desparate.

Also in a dogfight you are always changing heading to make yourself a harder target and to allow checking of six.

exactly. standard modern air to air tactics is to fly in pairs, one plane conventrates on the target while the other covers his six.

[Platapus]

name one single seat jet fighter where the pilot is able to check his own six while straped into his seat and wearing a flight helmet.

That's why fighter aircraft are often equipped with rear view mirrors.

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5060528948381747&pid=15.1&H=120&W=160

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4736151555474339&pid=15.1&H=120&W=160

[Dowly]

standard modern air to air tactics is to fly in pairs, one plane conventrates on the target while the other covers his six.

Who covers the wingman's six?

[Skybird]

The only thing being or getting "desperate", is the US financial situation.

It is to be questioned whether the excessive spendings on the F35 justfy what is being gained in return for that spending frenzy. Like was already the case with the F22.

When considering both American and German comments, both planes are a lethal combionation, with the raptor having the edge at long range engagements and remaing hidden from radar for longer time, while th Typhoons having the upper hand at closer ranges: it has better climb rate, better acceleration, is more agile, and shows superior manouverability in dogfighting - outmanouvering the thrust-vectoring of the F22.

Is the higher price of the F22 worth the advantage at longer range? Missile technology and radar technology are rapidly improving, and the Us never tested its arsenal against top notch Russian equipment that is maintained and run by Russians, under Russian control and Russian dioctrine. There missiles are very impressive.

It will take not m uch time before the F22 stelath advanatge will be reduced to unimpressive levels, I'm sure. What remaisn then is the hefty pricetag.

[TLAM Strike]

A new issue? Oh man just kill F-35 program!

Mordenize and reproduce A-10, F-15, F-16, F-18, and few more.
The company that built the A-10 doesn't exist anymore. It's factory is now a strip mall.

[Bilge_Rat]

Who covers the wingman's six?

lets look at a simple example:

1. both planes are heading north and spot a target to the north. One plane, usually the one in the best position, keeps moving north to engage;

2. the wingman will point his plane towards the east and the west so he can spot threats to the east-west-south. The shooter is covering the north.

[Glock30Eric]

Have you thought something outside of the box? There are many companies that would want to start business making A-10s for Gov't. They might have to work with the loyalty issue but they are far much cheaper than F-35 program.

[Oberon]

There are many companies that would want to start business making A-10s for Gov't.

Most of them in Beijing... :O:

[Jimbuna]

LOL :)

[Stealhead]

wrong answer. it's not possible on any of them.

Now if you are suggesting that a pilot maintain straight and level 1g flight, unstrap himself from his seat, physically move his upper body out of his seat, twist his head right or left at a 90 degree angle and depending of what type helmet he is wearing he can spot a bandit 5 miles behind him with his peripheral vision......no, still not possible, especially since most modern air operations take place at NIGHT. :ping:

That article is just another hatchet piece, the F35 critics are realy getting desparate.




No I am correct I worked every single day with USAF pilots they can check their 6 o'clock and they do it often.Now if you mean look back 180 degrees like an owl then yes that is not possible but enough of an angle to see what is going on in the rear sector yes they can.
Yes I know that they have the mirrors but in the aircraft I listed it is possible for them to look over the shoulder to the rear with their own eyes.


Hey look an F-16 pilot in a simulated dogfight with an F-15 checking his six o'clock but that is not possible!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=INb-421E-mo#t=13s
common sense look at the head position now consider the peripheral vision of the human body. I can find some actual in cockpit footage during a high G dogfight not filmed for an IMAX movie if you give me a an hour if you want to see more.

F/A-18 helmet mounted cam(the object visible in the supposedly impossible checking of six moments is the head rest of the ejection seat.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyXjo9T1TF8

http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/Stereoscopic_Field_of_View_zpsa198f9bf.jpg


How things are seen in the real world and how they appear in a flight sim are not the same.

It seems to me that you are coming up with excuses to downplay what the article says. A pilot can see another aircraft from 5 miles away and in close dog fighting the subject is within hundreds of meters or less well within visual range.Air combat is flown at all times not just at night.

Wait for it http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=t-WiqQymah8#t=264s

[soopaman2]

This joint strike fighter program is such a huge money gimme for so many people....

In the end we will still be using our Hornets on a large scale, as this program racks up billions in dollars of overages, and still doesn't work.

Maybe we can kill off SS to fund it.

[Jimbuna]

Does this really matter because I doubt there are many out there who can afford to make the purchase? :hmmm:

[Stealhead]

Not really.

[soopaman2]

:DDoes this really matter because I doubt there are many out there who can afford to make the purchase? :hmmm:

From what I understand the other big Euro countries got cash in on this too, as they will all get a version.

Britain, France, Germany, yeah, it's your pockets too.

Going to Americans, rich Americans, stealing...Go on, declare war...

Come get some...:O:

(teasing):timeout: I love you guys over there.:salute:

But seriously, alot of folks are getting raped here. Not just Americans.

[MH]

No I am correct I worked every single day with USAF pilots they can check their 6 o'clock and they do it often.Now if you mean look back 180 degrees like an owl then yes that is not possible but enough of an angle to see what is going on in the rear sector yes they can.
Yes I know that they have the mirrors but in the aircraft I listed it is possible for them to look over the shoulder to the rear with their own eyes.


Hey look an F-16 pilot in a simulated dogfight with an F-15 checking his six o'clock but that is not possible!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=INb-421E-mo#t=13s
common sense look at the head position now consider the peripheral vision of the human body. I can find some actual in cockpit footage during a high G dogfight not filmed for an IMAX movie if you give me a an hour if you want to see more.

F/A-18 helmet mounted cam(the object visible in the supposedly impossible checking of six moments is the head rest of the ejection seat.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyXjo9T1TF8

http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/Stereoscopic_Field_of_View_zpsa198f9bf.jpg


How things are seen in the real world and how they appear in a flight sim are not the same.

It seems to me that you are coming up with excuses to downplay what the article says. A pilot can see another aircraft from 5 miles away and in close dog fighting the subject is within hundreds of meters or less well within visual range.Air combat is flown at all times not just at night.
Wait for it http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=t-WiqQymah8#t=264s



What about argumented reality helmet that allows 360 spherical vision regardless of cockpit visibility.
It is plagued with some serious problems yet.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/F-35_Helmet_Mounted_Display_System.jpg

[Oberon]

In before Cybermat makes a HALO reference...

[Jimbuna]

LOL :)

[Skybird]

http://de.scribd.com/doc/129003638/DoD-Director-for-Operational-Test-and-Evaluation-Feb-2013-F-35A-Joint-Strike-Fighter-Readiness-for-Training-Operational-Utility-Evaluation

The original report.

The German Spiegel lists the Highlights of problems and risk assessments here:

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/stealth-flugzeug-pentagon-kritisiert-f-35-kampfjet-a-887552.html

It is a list that in principle declares this thing currently garbage, and the lists focusses more on what the thing cannot do in tests, and is banned from doing, instead of what is allows to be tested. And 1.5 trillion for this - still climbing. :har:

That a plane is used in pilot training already that is demanding so many things not to be done with it, due to security concerns and technical inabilities, pilots described to be "very atypical" and "not helpful". That even the airforce version - which is less complex and limited than the Navy and VTOL version - cannot hold ground against much older fighter models, is not encouraging. Many issues there are, also cannot be solved by chnages and repairs afterwards - they are to deeply rooting in the design.

Add turkey to the slwoly growing list of former customers stepping back from buying it. Turkey has delayed buying the plane, giving technical impotence as the reason, with declaring an option to bail out completely from the deal. Before, Canada and Australia have started to slowly shy away.

These three will not remain to be the only three, I'm certain.

[Stealhead]

What about argumented reality helmet that allows 360 spherical vision regardless of cockpit visibility.
It is plagued with some serious problems yet.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/F-35_Helmet_Mounted_Display_System.jpg


True but my point was that a pilot can in fact in many modern jet fighters with a "normal" helmet check his or her six it is in fact a vital part of air to air combat. In WWII first blown and then full bubble canopies came into use because pilots needed to be able to see what was happening behind them.

Some 2nd generation jet fighters where designed with too much faith in the missile technology and went away from bubble canopies.3rd generation designs took the lessons learned and they fully focused on cockpit visibility.In the F-16 for example they designed the cockpit so that the pilot has a very wide field of view.

You can have the fancy helmet technology that helps yes but you still need the "Mark 1 eyeball" as it is called in the US military.It is good to have modern technology(if it functions) but you still need to be able to use the old methods Morphy's Law says that your super advanced helmet is going to malfunction in the middle of a real dogfight and if you cant really check your six without the fancy now none functioning technology you are now at a disadvantage.

[MH]

I'm all with you about the bubble canopy and when it comes to murphy law , it is great yet usually military systems require certain standards in term of reliability.
Your wing might as well fall off in middle of combat so make airplanes with no wing?.

[Stealhead]

If your wing falls off it most likely either got blown off or you pushed the aircraft well beyond its limits.

Why not fly at all from that standpoint? In a close range dog fight it is possible for aircraft to collide so why fly at all?:D

Everything has some risk to it.You might fall stepping out of bed and break your neck.

[Skybird]

If only it were about bubble canopies. If only it were some thgeoretical concerns on the other issues.

But there are so many other issues. And it is pilots flying that thin g reporting them. Low AOA. Low acceleration (just recently reduced even more). Low G. Poor maintenance record. Engine replacement not taking 2 hours, but 50+ hours. Battery systems failing at temps below 15°C. Randomly failing radar. Certain manouvers essential for dogfighting - unflyable without high risk of damaging the plane, thus permitted. Problems with the turbine blades. Helmet electronics pretty often failing. Flight attitude indicators misaligning. No protection against lightning striking. Mysterious rockings and turnings of the stick. No manouverability that makes the F35 competitive against other fighters of 4th (!) generation. Just recently the allowed acceleration has been reduced again, a change that is meant to stay in the design : the plane can no longer get out of Dodge anymore once it detected a missile launch in an engagement where other, older planes still can.

And many flight parameters cannot and so far have not even been tested, since they are forbidden to be tried. Not bad for a plane that already is used for pilot training: no mid air refueling so far. No 5G+ manouvers. No night flying. No flying in "not the right weather". No speeds in excess of 0.9 Mach. No simulated weapon engagement.

And this is just the AirForce version. The Navy and VTOL versions are even more complicated, and even more handicapped.

Plus operational limitations, namely the short legs. The navy can make use of this plane only by accepting greater risks to its carrier groups or by reducing flexibility in operational planning due to the need to add many more inflight refuelings. The inflight refuelings that until now are banned to be even tried, and thus have not been tested so far. :haha: The positive thing is that the tankers must not take greater rsiks if not being used. :up:

This thing is a dollar grave. Much worse problem than there have been with the Eurofighter initially. And many of them root in the core design of the F35 and thus cannot be bypassed or fixed like they did in the EF.

But the biggest argument against this flying turkey was, still is and remains to be the insane price. Taken for itself, it already is an unacceptable number. Standardising the price by a cost-gain calculation, it even becomes worse.

I would not be surprised that the Chinese not only took something with them when they broke into the Lockheed database and stole code of the control logic - but if they also left something behind.

[MH]

If only it were about bubble canopies. If only it were some thgeoretical concerns on the other issues.

But there are so many other issues. And it is pilots flying that thin g reporting them. Low AOA. Low acceleration (just recently reduced even more). Low G. Poor maintenance record. Engine replacement not taking 2 hours, but 50+ hours. Battery systems failing at temps below 15°C. Randomly failing radar. Certain manouvers essential for dogfighting - unflyable without high risk of damaging the plane, thus permitted. Problems with the turbine blades. Helmet electronics pretty often failing. Flight attitude indicators misaligning. No protection against lightning striking. Mysterious rockings and turnings of the stick. No manouverability that makes the F35 competitive against other fighters of 4th (!) generation. Just recently the allowed acceleration has been reduced again, a change that is meant to stay in the design : the plane can no longer get out of Dodge anymore once it detected a missile launch in an engagement where other, older planes still can.

And many flight parameters cannot and so far have not even been tested, since they are forbidden to be tried. Not bad for a plane that already is used for pilot training: no mid air refueling so far. No 5G+ manouvers. No night flying. No flying in "not the right weather". No speeds in excess of 0.9 Mach. No simulated weapon engagement.

And this is just the AirForce version. The Navy and VTOL versions are even more complicated, and even more handicapped.

Plus operational limitations, namely the short legs. The navy can make use of this plane only by accepting greater risks to its carrier groups or by reducing flexibility in operational planning due to the need to add many more inflight refuelings. The inflight refuelings that until now are banned to be even tried, and thus have not been tested so far. :haha: The positive thing is that the tankers must not take greater rsiks if not being used. :up:

This thing is a dollar grave. Much worse problem than there have been with the Eurofighter initially. And many of them root in the core design of the F35 and thus cannot be bypassed or fixed like they did in the EF.

But the biggest argument against this flying turkey was, still is and remains to be the insane price. Taken for itself, it already is an unacceptable number. Standardising the price by a cost-gain calculation, it even becomes worse.

I would not be surprised that the Chinese not only took something with them when they broke into the Lockheed database and stole code of the control logic - but if they also left something behind.

If you are pessimist you may have nothing done at the end.
Aircraft development is not easy in particular when doing a leap in technology.

http://archive.gao.gov/f0102/114371.pdf

[Stealhead]

I think in the long term spending billions on something like the F-35 is a waste of money.The technology that will allow much more advanced UAVs to be fielded is not far over the horizon.


It is much more logical to invest in more feasible piloted aircraft programs and keep them in service until the UAV technology can take over.Like it or not robotics is the future of warfare.The way things are by the time the F-35 enters service it will be rendered obsolete within a decade of use if even that long.

[Jimbuna]

Surely that has been taken into account? :hmm2:

[Platapus]

Surely that has been taken into account? :hmm2:

Considering the Bag mafia in the USAF, I doubt it




and don't call me Shirley.

[Skybird]

If you are pessimist you may have nothing done at the end.
Aircraft development is not easy in particular when doing a leap in technology. And a real man builds what he gotta build - or what? :88)

Hackneyed sayings do not make this disaster project any better. It's a dollar grave, and they will pull the plug on it - the question only is whether they do it earlier, or later. Those 2400 planes will never be built, nor will this fleet ever be able in technical potency to fulfill all the expectations.

Some hundreds get build, mot more. Not sufficient to replace the fleet of dedicated CAS and 4th generation fighters and multi role aircraft. I even forsee a massive life expanding program for existing airplane types, due to the holes the F35 opens in the "front".

Too expensive, too bad in design, too reduced potency, not justifying the immense costs.

[Skybird]

I think in the long term spending billions on something like the F-35 is a waste of money.The technology that will allow much more advanced UAVs to be fielded is not far over the horizon.


It is much more logical to invest in more feasible piloted aircraft programs and keep them in service until the UAV technology can take over.Like it or not robotics is the future of warfare.The way things are by the time the F-35 enters service it will be rendered obsolete within a decade of use if even that long.

^ This.

[MH]

So you are ready to bet on some futuristic UAV technology as tool for archiving air superiority but f35 is overpriced and unproven technology that soon will be levelled up by adversaries?.:hmmm:



The F-35 and the Future of Power Projection

http://www.ndu.edu/press/the-f-35.html

[Bilge_Rat]

You can have the fancy helmet technology that helps yes but you still need the "Mark 1 eyeball" as it is called in the US military.It is good to have modern technology(if it functions) but you still need to be able to use the old methods Morphy's Law says that your super advanced helmet is going to malfunction in the middle of a real dogfight and if you cant really check your six without the fancy now none functioning technology you are now at a disadvantage.



It is much more logical to invest in more feasible piloted aircraft programs and keep them in service until the UAV technology can take over.Like it or not robotics is the future of warfare.The way things are by the time the F-35 enters service it will be rendered obsolete within a decade of use if even that long.



Not sure if I follow the logic. How can you argue the" MKI eyeball" is always necessary as a backup in case the Hi-tech fails and then argue the future is in pilotless plane which will rely 100% on Hi-tech?

[Bilge_Rat]

wow, so many distortions and out right lies, where to begin...



Low AOA.

false.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfWHHuLILs0


Low acceleration

false. better than any 4th gen plane.

Low G.

false. achieved 10g in flight tests.

Certain manouvers essential for dogfighting - unflyable without high risk of damaging the plane, thus permitted....No manouverability that makes the F35 competitive against other fighters of 4th (!) generation.

false. maneuverability as good or better than 4th gen planes, according to latest test.

no mid air refueling so far.

false.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvzysa7dntE

No night flying.

false.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LIsv9LJPfU

and REFUELING at NIGHT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr1ibsrSu2A



No speeds in excess of 0.9 Mach.

false.

No simulated weapon engagement.

false.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQeBgdoiTa4

And this is just the AirForce version. The Navy and VTOL versions are even more complicated, and even more handicapped.

VTOL version taking off and landing from the USS Wasp.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVj4vC81Ea4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfyYanKeGp8

Plus operational limitations, namely the short legs. The navy can make use of this plane only by accepting greater risks to its carrier groups or by reducing flexibility in operational planning due to the need to add many more inflight refuelings. The inflight refuelings that until now are banned to be even tried, and thus have not been tested so far. :haha: The positive thing is that the tankers must not take greater rsiks if not being used. :up:

false. better range than the F/A-18 ...and no problem refueling...:ping:

[Catfish]

@ Bilge Rat

Yeah, right.
Here are a few more recent articles:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130306/DEFREG02/303060011/F-35-Report-Warns-Visibility-Risks-Other-Dangers?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/f-35-blind-spot/

Official report february 2013
Readiness for Training Operational Utility Evaluation
http://de.scribd.com/doc/129003638/DoD-Director-for-Operational-Test-and-Evaluation-Feb-2013-F-35A-Joint-Strike-Fighter-Readiness-for-Training-Operational-Utility-Evaluation

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/12/document-download-the-f-35-con.html


Of course every new plane has to get through some painful phases and development, but this might be a bit too much, especially at that price.
Meanwhile it is a project too big to fail :hmm2:

[MH]

Of course every new plane has to get through some painful phases and development, but this might be a bit too much, especially at that price.
Meanwhile it is a project too big to fail :hmm2:

Pentagon's Best-Kept Secret: F-35 Fighter Is Progressing Nicely

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2012/06/11/pentagons-best-kept-secret-f-35-fighter-is-progressing-nicely/

:03:

[Skybird]

February 2013, the official report, once again, by the Director for Operational Test and Evaluation, send to the US minister of defence Leon Panetta on February 15th 2013.

http://de.scribd.com/doc/129003638/DoD-Director-for-Operational-Test-and-Evaluation-Feb-2013-F-35A-Joint-Strike-Fighter-Readiness-for-Training-Operational-Utility-Evaluation

The original report.


The general report by DOT&E for 2012 already included warnings about the state the F-35 program is in.

It is stuff like this that counts much more than some lobby propaganda published in a financial magazine or some outdated opinion piece in some random aeronautical magazine. And if you ask Lockheed, of course they tell you everything is fine. What else would seriously expect? If you ask a vopice from the defence indistry: of course, everything is fine. If you ask any profiteer from the insurtial-,military complex who ebnefits from defence spending frenzies, of ncourse, everysthging is fine.

Paying more money to them and not cutting projects, and pumping more money into them, always is fine with them. and if you threaten these projects, the predict the sky is falling.

Absolutely no surprise there.

Canada is delaying and shying out. Australia is delaying and shying out. Turkey is delaying and shying out. I predict more will follow with that: Buying later. Buying less numbers. Maybe not buying at all, finally.

Bildge Rat, the "feature list" I quoted is the condensate of that formal and official report by the DOT&E to MoD Panetta. That report is not even four weeks old. If you claim all that as "wrong", you better write a letter to the DOT&E and explain them that they are all wrong and that they should get new test pilots and engineers, since they are all stupid and incompetent and do not understand what they are doing.

I would not expect any reply, if I were you. :D

And since I'm at it, the question whether pilots have sufficient view and situational awareness to their 5-7 o'clock position, is somethign that does not get decided by theoretical thinkers, and not by forum posters and video game strategists, but by those being the real experts for that question: the flying pilots. And if they say the situational awareness to their rear sucks in tactical context, than I take from that that the situational awareness to their rear sucks. No diagram and no clever thinking about tactics changes that statement, then. And by "pilots" I mean pilots who are not being handpoicked and nchosen for media representation, and got ordered before a camera team arrives what they should say and when they should smile, but who give feedback to designers and engineers when the microphone has been switched off again and the camera has stopped running.

Okay, heads stuck in the sand find it difficult to hear anything with both ears buried, so I stop talking in here.

[MH]

And since I'm at it, the question whether pilots have sufficient view and situational awareness to their 5-7 o'clock position, is somethign that does not get decided by theoretical thinkers, and not by forum posters and video game strategists

:yep:

Question is if all those guys and press do or do not take everything out of context.
Pilot says there is a problem with something that need fixing or not? and all are screening grand fail.

[Catfish]

Pentagon's Best-Kept Secret: F-35 Fighter Is Progressing Nicely [...]
:03:

Ahhh .. yesss ... and the US will be #1 oil and gas exporter in a few years, due to fracking.
:O:

[MH]

Ahhh .. yesss ... and the US will be #1 oil and gas exporter in a few years, due to fracking.
:O:


What the frack?
:haha:

[Bilge_Rat]

February 2013, the official report, once again, by the Director for Operational Test and Evaluation, send to the US minister of defence Leon Panetta on February 15th 2013.



The general report by DOT&E for 2012 already included warnings about the state the F-35 program is in.

It is stuff like this that counts much more than some lobby propaganda

totally agree.

Bildge Rat, the "feature list" I quoted is the condensate of that formal and official report by the DOT&E to MoD Panetta. That report is not even four weeks old. If you claim all that as "wrong", you better write a letter to the DOT&E and explain them that they are all wrong and that they should get new test pilots and engineers, since they are all stupid and incompetent and do not understand what they are doing.

Skyybird, do you actually understand what you read? that so called "feature list" were the operating restrictions the USAF put on the very first class of USAF pilots while they learn how to fly the F35. This is perfectly normal for an aircraft at this stage and does not represent in any way its true capability.

If you want to know what an aircraft can actually achieve, you look at the flight tests.


Flight tests. Let’s start with the flight tests that are steadily verifying all the performance features of the aircraft. The program has surpassed its goals for flight testing in each of the last three years, doing 15 percent better than planned in 2011 and 20 percent better than planned so far in 2012. Collectively, the three versions of the F-35 have now flown well over 2,000 times, accomplishing more than a quarter of the planned tasks in a comprehensive testing regime. By the end of this year, the most common version of the plane — the one that will be used by the Air Force and exported to most foreign customers — will be 45 percent of the way through all its flight tests.

There has been a lot of talk lately about the dangers of producing F-35s before testing is completed, because if problems are found then planes already built will supposedly require costly fixes. So far, though, the danger seems to be mainly theoretical: Wikipedia says the price-tag for correcting problems uncovered in testing is $1.3 billion, which is less than one-half of one-percent of the production cost for 3,000 domestic and foreign fighters. Another concern has been delays in software; however, as of today 95 percent of the plane’s airborne software is either being used in flight tests or being tested in labs. No show-stoppers in sight, either in the hardware or in the software.

Few outsiders realize how smoothly the F-35 flight-test schedule is unfolding, so here are a few milestones of progress thus far this year. On January 18 the Air Force version performed its first night flight. On March 22 it conducted its first night-time refueling mission. On April 21 it completed its first aerial-refueling mission while carrying weapons. The Marine version accomplished the same refueling with weapons on board two week earlier; designed to land on a dime almost anywhere, the Marine variant has performed over 500 short takeoffs and over 300 vertical landings. The flights generally go well, which is why the testing schedule is so far ahead of plan.



from the article MH posted.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2012/06/11/pentagons-best-kept-secret-f-35-fighter-is-progressing-nicely/

[Skybird]

Bilge Rat,

you need to read the report again yourself. Especially the tables and the description of the columns.

Table 3-1 for example does not list limits that have been set up for trianign purposes, as you claim wrongly. It lists techncial deficits or limits established for operation, then lists the effects of these deficits (that'S what it is aboiut: deficits!) for the training effort of the trainee who canot use them, and finally lists the to be expected negative effect in any combat employment. The logic of that table is: this had to be forbidden, that currently is broken -> trainee cannot use it and cannot learn it -> specific handicap in a real combat employment resulting.

The DOT&E does not assess training programs, as far as I can say. It assesses and evaluates hardware and its development state. What the report to Panetta says about training, is describing how the limitations of the hardware are hampering the training quality of the trainees - not, like you claim, a wanted system of gradual difficulty levels in training programs. They do not do certain things because they cannot do them with the hardware, for it is putting them or the plane or both at risk.

Again, that report went to Panetta not even four weeks ago. Want to send that Forbes lobby piece to him to reassure you that the F35 one day will be wonderful, maybe? Forbes is a business magazine. DOT&E is not. ;)

Table 1-1 lists items of the training program as it was designed to be done - and compares that to the deficits and limitations of real training, where tasks could not be accomplished or completed due to technical deficits and regulations that again reflect deficits of the hardware, and are not features of graded difficulty levels. Trainees cannot train certain items of the regular training list.

Table 2-1 lists serious technical risks as identified by the Air Force.

---

I do not know whether these things ever will get resolved or not. I also do not care. The main argument is: the plane adds too little and probably too short-living advantages for too much money.

It simply is hopelessly overpriced and costs too much. Far too much. And this in a time when drones are doing the leap from remote-control to autonomous control and the drones just weeks ago were reported to have entered testing operations not in isolated testing areas, but in public airspace with civilian traffic.

And this in a time where the explicit debt of the state already exceeds the GDP, and where the implicit debts of that nation are 800-1200% of the explicit debt and/or GDP. Somebody weanst new toys but cannord afford them. That simple the truth is. So he buys them on tick, and makes even more debts.

As a - new? - libertarian movement's sticker in the US says: if you think you can spend your way out of debts, you're either the village idiot - or a politician.

[MH]

Read the pdf about f18 development...similar issues and lots of delays.
Certain manuvers might be be forbidden due to software bugs that need to be resolved or identified.
Happens often with new flight by wire systems if I recalll.

[Oberon]

I idly wonder if had the internet been around in the 1950s-60s whether we'd be having a similar conversation about the F-101 or F-4... :hmmm:

[Catfish]

There sure would have, about the F-104.


"How do you get a F-104 ?"
"Buy a square mile of land, and wait."
:oops:

[MH]

I idly wonder if had the internet been around in the 1950s-60s whether we'd be having a similar conversation about the F-101 or F-4... :hmmm:

:yep:
Also the f35 project is relativly opened to public compared to lets say cold war era.
Yet still , the data that ends up on the web is most likely very much limited when as always the negative issues always catching attention of many due to politics or sensationalism.
Anything positive is just propaganda and negative a healthy criticism for thinking people.
You know not the naive crowd.:doh:

[Skybird]

There sure would have, about the F-104.


"How do you get a F-104 ?"
"Buy a square mile of land, and wait."
:oops:

Would really all foreigners understand that joke?! ;) The Luftwaffe lost one third of it's Starfighters in accidents that to some degree where caused by maintenance failures (the Germans got more F-104s then the LW could handle), the Canadians even lost half of their fleet - but some other operators lost not a single machine.

In Germany the plane thus became known as "widow maker".

[Oberon]

Erdnagel :03:

Yes, I meant the 104, not the 101...call it a mid-afternoon numerical foul up. :03:

[Catfish]

^^ Which is a pity, i liked the F-104 for its futuristic form and performance, however its stall characteristics and slow-flying properties must have been tricky, to say at least.

It is an astonishing small plane, there's one in the Hannover Laatzen aircraft museum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyBDEG9dg-Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6K4iSxET6g

I still like it :)

[MH]

In Germany the plane thus became known as "widow maker".
..or was it the flying coffin?:hmmm:

[Catfish]

^ It's nickname indeed was "Witwenmacher"/widowmaker, in the european part of the NATO.

Seems it needed the GE J97 engine, not much gliding capabilities (?)

[Skybird]

To mention "gliding" when referring to "Starfighter" is a contradiction in itself. :) Those things glide in the meaning of an asteroid gliding past earth.

[Jimbuna]

There sure would have, about the F-104.


"How do you get a F-104 ?"
"Buy a square mile of land, and wait."
:oops:

Would really all foreigners understand that joke?! ;) The Luftwaffe lost one third of it's Starfighters in accidents that to some degree where caused by maintenance failures (the Germans got more F-104s then the LW could handle), the Canadians even lost half of their fleet - but some other operators lost not a single machine.

In Germany the plane thus became known as "widow maker".

Yes, some of us 'foreigners' in the UK and especially those with an interest in military aviation are well aware of the saying.

[Skybird]

Yes, some of us 'foreigners' in the UK and especially those with an interest in military aviation are well aware of the saying.
Woooh - sorry...

I am not aware to what degree the high loss record in Germany and Canada got taken note of internationally, even more so when over here the German loss ratio gets attributed less to the plane and more to the inadequate maintenance by the LW. It usually is said that the defence minister of that time bought more planes - in not always crystal clear deals - than the LW could operate, did need, and could guarantee good maintenance for, a logistical overload, so to speak. To what degree that holds truth I cannot judge, but it is given as an explanation quite often.

So I considered the many Starfighters falling out of the German sky to be an issue more present in the German mind than in international one.

[magic452]

I was working at Lockheed at that time and something happened that you don't see everyday at Burbank airport. A C-5A landed, only happened twice as far as I know. I loaded some SR-71 parts in the second, only things on the plane, They were in some kind of hurry for these things I guess.

On the first one I had to unload it and what did my surprised eyes see.
A F-104 complete less wings and tail in Luftwaffe markings. The story I got was that Lockheed was so upset with all the Luftwaffe problems that they went to Germany and picked one off the line and loaded it up and bough it home to take a look. I knew some of the people that worked on it and they said it was the most poorly maintained aircraft they ever saw.

As far as "glide" goes a friend of my dad was a design engineer on the 104 and the way he explained it to me was that it got lift from the air flow management through the intake and engine, it got a pretty good percentage of lift this way. Don't remember what percentage.
A way to explain this was to picture a ring on a string and spinning the ring, the string is the air flow and the ring the 104. Cut the string and down comes the ring.

As far as the F-35 I not so sure about it. Too expensive and getting more so every day. Might turn out to be a good plane but who can afford it.
And I'm from a Lockheed family that goes back to the late 1930s, even own stock. Oh wait " Go F-35" :up::up::up::up::up:

Don't know what Canada's problem was, maybe the same thing maybe not.

Magic

[Catfish]

Hello Magic,
thanks for the explanation, the airflow through the turbine needed for lift makes sense, looking at the relatively tiny wings - also they had not a subsonic aerodynamic profile, but more a 'spindle' one for high speeds - and no slats.

It is strange that the french air force and the Israelis flew their Mirages with improved Heinkel jet engines, the latter also forming the basis for the Bell X-5
(no this is not a Bell X5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_P.1101), and Germany had to buy planes and jet engines from abroad :03:

[Sailor Steve]

...not much gliding capabilities (?)

To mention "gliding" when referring to "Starfighter" is a contradiction in itself. :) Those things glide in the meaning of an asteroid gliding past earth.
The phrase here was "Glides like a brick."

[MH]

It is strange that the french air force and the Israelis flew their Mirages with improved Heinkel jet engines, the latter also forming the basis for the Bell X-5
(no this is not a Bell X5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_P.1101), and Germany had to buy planes and jet engines from abroad :03:

Considering the situation Germany had been shortly after ww2 not so strange but maybe ironical.
In the 60s Germany just had started to recover from the war and building its industrial strength:hmmm:

It is also not so strange that western Germany was equipped with cold war bomber interceptors like f 104.
I suppose the war plan doctrine for that time would call just for that sice germany was in hot spot for the west - east conflict.

^ It's nickname indeed was "Witwenmacher"/widowmaker, in the european part of the NATO.

:salute:

[Bilge_Rat]

Bilge Rat,

you need to read the report again yourself. Especially the tables and the description of the columns.

again, you seem to have limited knowledge of how aircraft development works.

Table 3-1 for example does not list limits that have been set up for trianign purposes, as you claim wrongly. It lists techncial deficits or limits established for operation, then lists the effects of these deficits (that'S what it is aboiut: deficits!) for the training effort of the trainee who canot use them, and finally lists the to be expected negative effect in any combat employment. The logic of that table is: this had to be forbidden, that currently is broken -> trainee cannot use it and cannot learn it -> specific handicap in a real combat employment resulting.

you are again wrong. Do you not understand the term "operating limitations"?


Table 1-1 lists items of the training program as it was designed to be done - and compares that to the deficits and limitations of real training, where tasks could not be accomplished or completed due to technical deficits and regulations that again reflect deficits of the hardware, and are not features of graded difficulty levels. Trainees cannot train certain items of the regular training list.

only because of operating restrictions, again perfectly normal for an aircraft which has not even finished all of its flight tests.

Table 2-1 lists serious technical risks as identified by the Air Force.

Agreed. But this is a very short list of relatively minor issues, again not uncommon for an aircraft at this stage of its development.

[Oberon]

I seem to recall the F4 being referred to as 'the triumph of thrust over aerodynamics' and 'proof that with a big enough engine even a brick could fly." Although truth be told, I have heard good things about her maneuverability. :yep:

[Stealhead]

I seem to recall the F4 being referred to as 'the triumph of thrust over aerodynamics' and 'proof that with a big enough engine even a brick could fly." Although truth be told, I have heard good things about her maneuverability. :yep:


The thing with the F-4 is not that it has no agility but that most other foes that it might encounter have better agility.Of course an important element to any combat aircraft is its pilot/crew if the plane is flown where it has advantages and the opposing aircraft is at a disadvantage that aircraft will likely win the engagement.

Therefore an F-4 driver that knows his plane and knows his enemy this pilot will have confidence in his aircraft.

[Oberon]

The thing with the F-4 is not that it has no agility but that most other foes that it might encounter have better agility.Of course an important element to any combat aircraft is its pilot/crew if the plane is flown where it has advantages and the opposing aircraft is at a disadvantage that aircraft will likely win the engagement.

Therefore an F-4 driver that knows his plane and knows his enemy this pilot will have confidence in his aircraft.

:yep: I think you could say that about most aircraft, if you know what you can get away with and know the limits of the enemies aircraft then you have an advantage in an engagement. For example a Spitfire pilot who knows his aircraft and the enemy would know to try to lure a 109 pilot into a turning dogfight where he has the advantage rather than a climbing dogfight where the 109 has the advantage.

I think how long the F4 stayed in service and the sheer number of nations it served with is another good indicator of what sort of aircraft it was at the end of the day.

[Stealhead]

I think how long the F4 stayed in service and the sheer number of nations it served with is another good indicator of what sort of aircraft it was at the end of the day.


True. There are numerous evaluations of the F-4 and its combat capabilities and actual performance to many to list in this thread without going a good way off topic.Though that already seems to have happened some what.

The the F-4 also ended up taking over the F-105's role in the USAF from 1968 onwards and performed very well as a strike aircraft.The F-4G was an excellent SEAD platform.The F-4 also has the honor of being the first aircraft to use laser guided bombs in combat back in 1972.

[MH]

I think how long the F4 stayed in service and the sheer number of nations it served with is another good indicator of what sort of aircraft it was at the end of the day.

Yeah it was a work horse and flexible air plane but not very exceptional at any role.
F35 is possibly going the same route but on different level by today's standards.