F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked
- Thread starter djpav
- Start date
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I know.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Oh dang! I try to come across as a cynic. :SGD, you reveal yourself as an optimist?
My guess: The announced 13-month delay is not a worse case scenario. It is more likely a best case scenario.
According to Ares USAF IOC has now been delayed by 2 years to 2015...
Ares Homepage
I am confused -- why are they suddenly shifting IOC by two whole years if testing is delayed by only 13 months?
I'd suggest that ARES is wrong. The last IOC I've seen internally was 2014. That would mean a slip of 12 months - and considering what the US was indirectly telling Aust via Carter et al on a shake up on all programs, thats not been unexpected.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Bill Sweetman's wrong? No, can't be. He's been an industry insider for decades, hasn't he???
Actually the only thing wrong with the ARES report is that Gen Schwartz, not Sec Donley, stated USAF IOC had slipped to late 2015. This was stated to House Armed Services on Feb 23rd:
U.S. House of Representatives, House Armed Services Committee
U.S. House of Representatives, House Armed Services Committee
localhost127
Member
Feb17short landing test:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo1xoNoi3uM]YouTube - F-35 Lightning II Short Landing Highlights[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo1xoNoi3uM]YouTube - F-35 Lightning II Short Landing Highlights[/ame]
Further Delays
Dr Carter has moved full rate production back to November 2015 in his Feb 24th Memo (available online sorry I can't attach it).
Roughly 5 months into the FY2010 flight test program around 30 of 1,200 test flights have been flown.
The recently released 24 monthly reports by DCMA (see DCMA online reading room) paint a very poor picture of LM performance.
The program will certainly be delayed further when the test program reveals new issues.
The USN has also announced it's IOC will be pushed out as well as the USAF. As of today the USMC has announced no changes and it's worth noting they plan IOC with earlier blocks.
Dr Carter has moved full rate production back to November 2015 in his Feb 24th Memo (available online sorry I can't attach it).
Roughly 5 months into the FY2010 flight test program around 30 of 1,200 test flights have been flown.
The recently released 24 monthly reports by DCMA (see DCMA online reading room) paint a very poor picture of LM performance.
The program will certainly be delayed further when the test program reveals new issues.
The USN has also announced it's IOC will be pushed out as well as the USAF. As of today the USMC has announced no changes and it's worth noting they plan IOC with earlier blocks.
Attached is the full memo.
Besides the expected bad news, a few points of light.
1. Building one extra F-35C for the SDD program.
2. Transfer 3 LRIP F-35s to the SDD Program. These additional F-35s will be part of ITO&E when they finish with SDD. This will significantly speed up the flight test schedule.
3. LM Building an additional software integration line.
4. Withhold LM award fees if milestones are not met on time.
5. They approved "long lead" funding as part of FY2011 for 48 F-35s. This will allow the future orders to go up if LM can quickly fix the issues.
The memo is here
Besides the expected bad news, a few points of light.
1. Building one extra F-35C for the SDD program.
2. Transfer 3 LRIP F-35s to the SDD Program. These additional F-35s will be part of ITO&E when they finish with SDD. This will significantly speed up the flight test schedule.
3. LM Building an additional software integration line.
4. Withhold LM award fees if milestones are not met on time.
5. They approved "long lead" funding as part of FY2011 for 48 F-35s. This will allow the future orders to go up if LM can quickly fix the issues.
The memo is here
F-35
Not wishing to get too far into the business of comparing 'this with that' any thoughts on the Chengdu J-10. At least given it seems to have been modified with diverterless supersonic intake etc. something of a cross between an F-35 and a Typhoon. Believe the J-10 can push mach 2.2 at altitude as against the F-35 reported around mach 1.7.
Not wishing to get too far into the business of comparing 'this with that' any thoughts on the Chengdu J-10. At least given it seems to have been modified with diverterless supersonic intake etc. something of a cross between an F-35 and a Typhoon. Believe the J-10 can push mach 2.2 at altitude as against the F-35 reported around mach 1.7.
Last edited:
Incredibly different planes, so I don't know how useful comparing the two would be. Maximum speeds aren't particularly meaningful in terms of practicality because planes rarely (if ever) attain them during operational service. Tphuang gave some useful information on the J-10 in this thread here though, if you're interested
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/how-good-j-10-a-6478/
Absolute speed is becoming less and less of an important performance figure, especially with the days of the dedicated interceptor coming to a close, if it hasn't already.
That's not to say that going fast doesn't have it's uses, (see the experience RF-101 Voodoo and the F-105 Thunderchief in Vietnam) but I'm inclined to think that the modern strike fighter has greater needs than raw speed.
Stealth/LO, advanced avionics, precision and standoff weaponry, agility, handling qualities, situational awareness, etc. are all as important, if not more important than raw power.
Plus, use of that high burst speed demands heavy use of the afterburner, which eats fuel and cuts range, or adds an extra burden to your tankers. Not to mention the fact that it's rough on the engines.
So in conclusion, any speed deficit between the J-10 and the F-35 doesn't really worry me. The F-35's strengths lie in areas which seem to be far more practical and much more important/relevant to today's battlespace.
The flight test program shows no sign of doing anything but falling further behind. It's a positive step they are adding 1 test aircraft and moving the 3 LRIP but these need to be built and that's been the whole problem- LM having myriad problems building aircraft. Also as you noted elsewhere the 3 LRIP aircraft need to be converted to test then back to ITO&E and this will of course delay ITO&E.
It's actually been depressing reading the DCMA reports recently made public. It's not clear that adding many more aircraft to LM production back log will be helpful at this point. In my view they need to take a deep breath and really examine the concurrency of the program and emphasize flight testing and producing aircraft for flight testing. Also LM needs to show it's serious and replace some personnel.
They've only completed 2% of the flight test program. Making schedules is really besides the point when they don't know what they don't know as they will only be delayed more in the future.
It's actually been depressing reading the DCMA reports recently made public. It's not clear that adding many more aircraft to LM production back log will be helpful at this point. In my view they need to take a deep breath and really examine the concurrency of the program and emphasize flight testing and producing aircraft for flight testing. Also LM needs to show it's serious and replace some personnel.
They've only completed 2% of the flight test program. Making schedules is really besides the point when they don't know what they don't know as they will only be delayed more in the future.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Actually the flight test program IS moving forward. 51x flights were conducted in 2009. Here we are only 6 months into FY10 and 40x flights have been conducted so far, with BF-3 in particular proving to be relatively trouble free, with 5x flights in it's first 2 weeks of flying.
Now, L-M has yet to match the schedule it has set itself for the flight test program, that is true, however the signs of improvement ARE there. They just need to be looked for.
With more aircraft to take to the air soon, I see things getting only better from here.
F-35
Thanks for response Bonza and Kilo 2-3, not going to push it too far though didn't either the Typhoon or was it the Rafael do pretty well against the F-18 in recent exercises. Obviously the F-18 not really on the same level as the F-35 either. Though it does bring into question the manoeuvrability of these different types of aircraft by design.
Thanks for response Bonza and Kilo 2-3, not going to push it too far though didn't either the Typhoon or was it the Rafael do pretty well against the F-18 in recent exercises. Obviously the F-18 not really on the same level as the F-35 either. Though it does bring into question the manoeuvrability of these different types of aircraft by design.
Last edited:
Well, there's a lot of factors to consider in modern air combat. Speed and manoeuvrability is one thing, but you also have to consider other capabilities, for example (and this one gets brought up a lot) would you rather have an aircraft that can pull 9 Gs, or a helmet mounted display and high off-boresight missiles that can pull 60 Gs? It's a trump card, and one that's due to computing and missile technology rather than the airframe's capability. That's just an example but the "total package" is very relevant, not just of the aircraft but of the air force itself. So supporting assets, pilot training, computing technology (which in turn has an effect on multiple systems), etc - all these things besides an aircraft's speed and manoeuvrability make themselves very relevant in modern air combat.
As far as those stories of the Rhino vs the Rafale, I've heard bits and pieces but bear in mind the objective of such training - that is, not to go head-to-head to prove who's the best, but to give pilots valuable experience in a variety of scenarios. As such the results are more often dictated by the scenario rather than the aircraft involved. It's explained very well by gf0012-aust at the following link:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/dissimilar-air-combat-training-dact-1157/
Hope that interests you
FY2010 Flight Tests
With 7 months remaining in the current FY it might sound positive that they've flown 40 flights but the schedule calls for 1,200+. So they've flown about 3% of the total in roughly 42% of the scheduled time.
They are not making a dent in the total percentage of required test flights (it's 5,000+) and are falling further behind schedule every single day.
If there were on schedule for FY2010 they'd be flying 100+ flights a month on average. Flying 40 in 5 months is extremely negative not positive.
With 7 months remaining in the current FY it might sound positive that they've flown 40 flights but the schedule calls for 1,200+. So they've flown about 3% of the total in roughly 42% of the scheduled time.
They are not making a dent in the total percentage of required test flights (it's 5,000+) and are falling further behind schedule every single day.
If there were on schedule for FY2010 they'd be flying 100+ flights a month on average. Flying 40 in 5 months is extremely negative not positive.