F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

[Air Force Brat]

this:
is a great part, implying either the Pentagon or me, the SDF Jura, could be wrong, sure, 'make your choice'

now I'm literally laughing loud, my wife's coming ... have to stop so that she doesn't see this, LOL!

Yeah, I know the feeling, the "Honey Badger" will demand to know why I'm "smirking"?? when I'm reading some nonsense posted by a couple of our "true internet experts",, no pilot, no engineer, no military experience??? but they know it all, especially disappointing are the "nasty boys"??

Now as for you?? if you really want any credibility as an F-35 critic?, and that seems to be the territory you've for some reason decided to live and die on?? You as "SDF Jura", (he's the real thing, and there is only one like him, SDF's only former Soviet Spy, Ilyia Kuryaken, see him in the movie of "Man from Uncle"), feel free to show your wifey this paragraph, and of course I DO believe everything I watch in the movies, ie "Top Gun" and "Star Wars".....

Then you really ought to man up and hold the Su-57 and J-20 to the same standards of your own personal scrutiny and expert "critique"! I can assure you they are both over budget, have experienced unwanted cracking in numerous places, are "underperforming" aerodynamically, and have far fewer aircraft than they promised???, I'd BET MY LAST, MY VERY LAST BEN FRANKLIN, as in 100 Dollar bill in my back pocket right now, in fact I just laid it up on the computer keyboard right now,,,, (I better hide it the "Honey Badger" is coming back)!

anyway, I promise when Putin and the little green men come for you my friend,,, I will be there in my old black Cessna Cardinal to extricate you and yours, from your "sticky wicket", and I'll be wearing my "cowboy hat" and my "Colt Govment Model" in 38 Super with the real Sanbar Stag handles!

anyway, I love you man, and we should remember not to take ourselves to seriously here, as nobody else does? happy Lord's day Brother! see you in church!

anyway, I am holding my breath for an F-22 re-pop, no OVT necessary, just the best air superiority fighter on the planet, and am happily seeing LockMart crank out those F-35 Alphas, Bravo's, and Charlie's, there are coming to an airstrip near you! oh, and I'll be happy for LockMart to bring any of those early birds to my house, love those Baby's, maybe I can get my hands on AF-02, love that bird!

 

[Air Force Brat]

now noticed
U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Jets Involved In First Operational Deployment Near the Horn of Africa Flying With External Gun Pod

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Now this, makes it all worth it! This bad boy, "open carry", with his "Colt 45" strapped on his hip!

 

[AndrewS]

Well, it makes for a much better final aircraft, because you're not done designing when the first dozen test aircraft are flying, but you're able to keep the design blueprint open.. so you can fix those early birds now, or you can fly them as is, and fix them at your convenience later on, just as we did with the F-22....

We are not in an arms race with ourselves, we are building capability against a potential numerically superior force. It was absolute stupidity to cap F-22 production at 187, so we are building F-35's rapidly in order to cushion the potential shortfall when we elect another BHO...

Its always better to have more airplane than you need?? than not to have enough airplane, and get your butt kicked, by someone who doesn't "play by your rules"!

but hey, its a big dangerous world, there are lots of people I don't trust, being on SDF has shown me the wisdom of maintaining air superiority,,, sadly there are lots of nasty people in this world... most Govt's do not respect my Freedom, while my Govt's far from perfect, no doubt, its still the best thing going on the planet honestly?? of course people here all entitled to their own opinions??

but for my money, I've very, very happy with the F-35, and the F-35 program,,, we ended up with a lot more airplane than we expected, a LOT more airplane, look at the RIAT display, that last "break out" says it all, all that LockMart goodness, in a 100 million dollar airplane, that my friend is a bargain!

No, any rational evaluation in the past 20years would have come to the conclusion that no potential enemy would be able to build anywhere near enough modern aircraft to challenge the entire US Air Force and Navy.

That makes the decision to rush the F-35 with concurrency a mistake, as it means a lot of aircraft need fixes which would have been unnecessary had they had been produced some 3-5 years later.

If you throw enough money at a program, then of course you buy a lot of aircraft. But does it mean the F-35 was a good program?

It was hugely delayed and over budget, partly because of concurrency and partly because it tried to develop too many versions.

In retrospect, the F-35B would definitely have been better off as a separate program, but with the same sensor suite.

The F-35B vertical lift fan caused so many development delays and cost increases and design compromises affecting the other versions, yet the F-35B only comprises 15% of total F-35 production.

From a program point of view, I think it only rates a B at best

 

[Jura The idiot]

... Then you really ought to man up and hold the Su-57 and J-20 ...

we've been through this: there's no connection between F-35 issues and foreign aircraft issues, actually I find it to be a rather poor diversion LOL

also repeating myself, the thing is if the Pentagon would, or wouldn't, have been better off if it had spent F-35 money differently

(an example just not to be abstract: if more of teen-series had been modernized and procured, and 6Gen development put on fast track, instead of the F-35 program)

I've now highlighted an example above so that somebody doesn't quote this to say like what about Harrier II replacement LOL

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

also repeating myself, the thing is if the Pentagon would, or wouldn't, have been better off if it had spent F-35 money differently

(an example just not to be abstract: if more of teen-series had been modernized and procured, and 6Gen development put on fast track, instead of the F-35 program)

What would be the point in buying more teens then we have been already buying?
I mean the Navy is still buying super duper Hornets.
The second they Slapped the designation F/A18E on the Rhino Super Hornet that ended the classic Hornet for the Navy.
The Marines knew that Harrier was not aging well and not suited to the future but maintaining a sip par performance S/VTOL machine in low numbers for LHA and LHD as well as buying even Super Hornet meant running a second fighter program and all the issues with it.

The USAF F22 would have been nicer to buy more I will give you but at the time it was just as decisive as the Panther is today.
buying more F15C would have been a poor choice and F15E in the USAF is a special mission bird with the same limitations as the C in terms of survival against advanced air defenses. F16 is getting a modernization but why buy more when the USAF already has more Vipers then all the other Viper drivers combined? And with the same survival issues.
A10 production line is long long gone and although fine for dealing with non defended why bother really?
The options were 1 multi variant fifth gen bird or 3 new fifth gens as those offered survivability, Unless you want a Silent Viper (coolest thing in Patlabor 2) and Silent Eagle (which didn't emerge as an offering till far later and didn't find a buyer). But both those would have suffered.
The DOD felt that one multi variant bird was the best option at the time.

As to Sixth gen that is long term future and fast tracking it would be short sticking it. Resulting in much of the same issues of overruns and concurrency as you try to fix what was not ready for field use yet.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

The F-35B vertical lift fan caused so many development delays and cost increases and design compromises affecting the other versions, yet the F-35B only comprises 15% of total F-35 production

Not really as the others are separate builds. It did effect the program but by forcing the F35 as a while to drop from the over ambition of 75% commonality to just 25%.
This means that a issue with the F35B has less effect on the A or C.
The C model has had its own issues with gear and tail hooks.

 

[Jura The idiot]

What would be the point in buying ...

I tried to put a disclaimer 39 minutes ago
:

(an example just not to be abstract: if more of teen-series had been modernized and procured, and 6Gen development put on fast track, instead of the F-35 program)

I've now highlighted an example above so that somebody doesn't quote this to say like what about Harrier II replacement LOL

which didn't work LOL

 

[Jura The idiot]

Not really as the others are separate builds. It did effect the program but by forcing the F35 as a while to drop from the over ambition of 75% commonality to just 25%.
This means that a issue with the F35B has less effect on the A or C.
The C model has had its own issues with gear and tail hooks.

seeing 'commonality' ... it's actually interesting to see how the spin doctors worked this up, using google one can find for example 2011 presumably success story of

"Commonality is the key to affordability – on the assembly line; in shared-wing platforms; in common systems that enhance maintenance, field support and service interoperability; and in almost 100 percent commonality of the avionics suite." etc.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

while five years later

"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, Joint Strike Fighter program executive officer, last week questioned whether it make sense to split F-35 production into three dedicated lines, given that commonality between the three variants is only about 20-25 percent."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

LOL makes me wonder what else is a fairy tale

 

[Jura The idiot]

only now noticed (dated 18 September, 2018) the FlightGlobal story F-35 stress tests raise possibility of longer service life

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

After completing static, drop and durability testing on the F-35A, Lockheed Martin believes that early results indicate potential for an increased service life certification of the stealth fighter.

The F-35’s service lifetime is designed to be 8,000h, but each test airframe is required to successfully complete two lifetimes of testing, the equivalent of 16,000h. The F-35A exceeded the requirement by completing three full lifetimes of testing, 24,000h, prompting Lockheed to moot the potential service-life extension.

“We look forward to analyzing the results and bringing forward the data to potentially extend the aircraft’s lifetime certification even further,” said Greg Ulmer, Lockheed Martin’s vice president and general manager of the F-35 program. “Already certified for one of the longest lifetimes of any fighter, an increase would greatly reduce future costs for all F-35 customers over several decades to come.”

The USAF plans to fly the F-35A until at least 2070, so a longer lifespan per aircraft may allow the service to reach that goal without having to purchase new fighters. However, as aircraft age they become more expensive to maintain and operate, making it unclear if a service life extension of the F-35A would be economical.

The F-35A airframe completed its testing at BAE Systems in Brough, England. The F-35B and C variants were tested at Lockheed Martin’s facility in Fort Worth, Texas, though the company did not release the results for those variants. All variants will eventually undergo final teardown inspections at the National Institute for Aviation Research in Wichita, Kansas.

 

[AndrewS]

Not really as the others are separate builds. It did effect the program but by forcing the F35 as a while to drop from the over ambition of 75% commonality to just 25%.
This means that a issue with the F35B has less effect on the A or C.
The C model has had its own issues with gear and tail hooks.

And how much time and money was wasted during the arguments over the redesigns which dropped commonaliIty from 75% to 25%?

I recall reading a Rand report about how it would have been a lot cheaper to develop and field 3 separate aircraft.