More problems with F-35 joint strike fighter are revealed

[unhappycamper]

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/12/13/3592980/more-problems-with-f-35-joint.html

More problems with F-35 joint strike fighter are revealed
Posted Tuesday, Dec. 13, 2011
By Bob Cox

Problems with the F-35 joint strike fighter appear to be more numerous and more serious than the Defense Department has been willing to concede publicly, according to an internal report prepared for top Pentagon officials and obtained by the Star-Telegram.

The report, dated Nov. 29, sounds alarms that technological and performance problems, which will be costly to resolve, lie ahead for the already troubled and over-budget warplane. Among the issues raised are unexpectedly severe shaking and failures of an important electrical component. However, the report does not suggest that any of the problems cannot be overcome or that the F-35 will be unable to fulfill its intended capabilities.

~snip~

The latest report comes as the Pentagon faces big budget cuts even as spending on the F-35 program is scheduled to rise sharply.

~snip~

The report is a damning assessment of the state of the F-35 program, said longtime Pentagon weapons procurement critic Franklin C. "Chuck" Spinney, a former Air Force officer and Defense Department civilian weapons analyst.

[leveymg]

1. 10,000 lbs. overweight for a dogfighter, single-engined,underpowered and too slow for air supremacy.

This thing is a compromise of compromises, and is already obsolete. Not to mention, it's unaffordable. It even looks inadequate.

[caraher]

2. "Too big to fail"

That's the F-35 program in a nutshell - when the MIC tosses all their eggs in the same basket, they cling to that basket for dear life!

I'm sure they'll get most of the bugs worked out eventually, but not before some pretty astronomical overruns in the development process.

[FarCenter]

3. Never buy Version 1.0 of anything.

Too many conflicting requirements.

Being invisible to radar and being able to fly.

Being able to operate from runways, from aircraft carriers, and with vertical takoff (F-35A, B and C versions respectively).

[caraher]

4. This is scarcely the first "stealth" aircraft

But the multiplicity of requirements is a problem. It seems that, while there have been very successful multirole combat aircraft historically (I'm thinking of the F4U Corsair, F-4 Phantom II, F-15 and its variants as far as US aircraft), they rarely were aircraft designed expressly with all those conflicting requirements, but rather had a specific purpose but had enough size and power to be adapted to new roles.

The F-35 seems more like the F-111...

[FarCenter]

6. The F-111 is probably the best analogy

In that case, the ability to be both a fighter and a bomber coupled with the "swing wing" design made for an overweight and high-maintenance aircraft that didn't do much well.

They have the vertical takeoff powerplant of the F-35C on a stand at the Udvar-Hazy museum at Dulles. It is huge, and I'd think that designing the airframe to be able to accommodate it led to some suboptimal choices. It may also be the reason that there are weaknesses and cracking in the structure.

Now that the Brits are going with electrical catapaults on their aircraft carrier, and since they'll be ordering the F-35B, designing for vertical takeoff was a clear mistake. Regardless of what the US Marines say.

[jmowreader]

7. The Marines want to replace the Harrier

That's a worthwhile goal, but the fuckers need to replace it with the Apache because the things the Marines do with the Harrier can be done with the Apache for a hell of a lot less money than they could be with the F-35C.

[Odin2005]

5. this is what military pork looks like.