F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

[Road_Warrior]

Pretty damning if true, if this means they have to redesign the aircraft it may mean the unit cost will be pushed up to the point it will become another expensive, unviable defence project.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-carriers.html

Leaked Pentagon documents claim a design flaw in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has caused eight simulated landings to fail.

The “F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Concurrency Quick Look Review” claimed the flaw meant that the “arrestor” hook, used to stop the plane during landing, was too close to the plane’s wheels.

When a fighter lands on an aircraft carrier an arrestor cable catches the hook on the back of the aircraft, preventing it from overshooting and ditching into the sea.

The documents warn of "major consequences" to the aircraft’s structure and cast doubt on the readiness of the JSF to provide close-air support, which is seen as critical to a carrier’s role in providing amphibious landings.

The review further suggests the planes will be unable to fire the British Asraam air-to-air missile.

It adds that the F-35C remains untested in several areas, concluding that "there is a high likelihood of future failures that are not yet identified".

The report, seen by the Sunday Times newspaper, concludes that unless a "significant redesign" of the aircraft is urgently completed the future of the aircraft is at risk.

If such a redesign is proven to be too costly or difficult to implement, it warns that the entire F-35C programme may have to be scrapped.

Britain is due to buy around 50 aircraft at a total cost of about £5 billion but senior Navy sources admitted last night that on current budget, the MoD will have just six available by 2020.

They also told The Daily Telegraph that the flaws could place the entire JSF programme in jeopardy amid fears it could be axed all together despite billions of pounds spent by the British and American governments and other “partner nations”.

They further suggested that the flaws could also have major implications for the Royal Air Force and its manned fighter programmes. Labour called on the government to “come clean on the full impact of the defence review”.

Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, said: "An island nation like ours should be able to operate aeroplanes from an aircraft carrier.

"The government must come clean on the full impact of the defence review. It's essential we know how long we will be without carrier strike capability."

On Sunday night a Ministry of Defence spokesman declined to comment on the leaked report.

But he added that Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, met his American counterpart, Leon Panetta, during a visit to Washington last month to “discuss a number of issues including the joint Strike Fighter”.

"We are taking delivery of our first Joint Strike Fighters for test and evaluation purposes this year and are committed to purchasing the carrier variant of the JSF,” he said.

“Our plans remain on track to have a new carrier strike capability from around 2020.”

Here's another, more critical article on the subject. Oh dear.

http://aviationintel.com/2012/01/10/...-on-a-carrier/

[Jim Goose]

That particular version isnt what we (Aust) is buying.

We are buying the plane.. er plain runway bound "A" version.

However there are some serious design flaws in all 3 versions which has been found out now, software, cracking, airflow issues (causing the cracking) in which a penagon report labelled as serious issues mid last year....

Not to mention is now at least 4yrs behind schedule and the price has doubled.

[Neale]

sounds like the F111 all over again

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Neale

sounds like the F111 all over again

The F111 suffered from wing failures which were traced back to poor quality metal (from memory) in the wing box. Also the air intakes were redesigned due to flow issues. Mind you, there was no "super" computers back then so it did pretty well.

The F-35 however is a "paperless" aeroplane fully designed using computers... sadly they got several major things wrong.

It is also the wrong plane for Australia as its really a CAS aeroplane and not really a fighter. Not to mention it has one engine... a very poor load capcity in the weapons bays (in the fighter role initially just 2 AIM-120 and just 2 Aim-9) and in the bomb role 2 large JDAM and 2 AIM-9 missiles...

Oh but people say... it can carry weapons under the wings... goodo, then you have a plane which has a bigger radar return thus negating its so called "sealthy features".

And better still is that it wont be cleared to carry drop tanks (EVER) so much for long range flying... itll need a lot of tanker support to go anywhere.

Our $200million non-refundable "buy in" (previous governement) was a total crock too as it didnt pay for a single plane, but just to be a "partner" in some 3rd level development of maybe the ciggie lighter or a landing light....

[Neale]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

The F111 suffered from wing failures which were traced back to poor quality metal (from memory) in the wing box. Also the air intakes were redesigned due to flow issues. Mind you, there was no "super" computers back then so it did pretty well.

The F-35 however is a "paperless" aeroplane fully designed using computers... sadly they got several major things wrong.

It is also the wrong plane for Australia as its really a CAS aeroplane and not really a fighter. Not to mention it has one engine... a very poor load capcity in the weapons bays (in the fighter role initially just 2 AIM-120 and just 2 Aim-9) and in the bomb role 2 large JDAM and 2 AIM-9 missiles...

Oh but people say... it can carry weapons under the wings... goodo, then you have a plane which has a bigger radar return thus negating its so called "sealthy features".

And better still is that it wont be cleared to carry drop tanks (EVER) so much for long range flying... itll need a lot of tanker support to go anywhere.

Our $200million non-refundable "buy in" (previous governement) was a total crock too as it didnt pay for a single plane, but just to be a "partner" in some 3rd level development of maybe the ciggie lighter or a landing light....

True the F111 eventually turned out to be a good aircraft that did the job that it was built for very well. But it also was over budget & took longer to deliver than expected.

Hopefully they can get the problems sorted & turn it int a good aircraft.

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

The F111 suffered from wing failures which were traced back to poor quality metal (from memory) in the wing box. Also the air intakes were redesigned due to flow issues. Mind you, there was no "super" computers back then so it did pretty well.

Both aircraft are right at the limits of what the technology of the day could accomplish.

The F-35 however is a "paperless" aeroplane fully designed using computers... sadly they got several major things wrong.

Like?

It is also the wrong plane for Australia as its really a CAS aeroplane and not really a fighter. Not to mention it has one engine... a very poor load capcity in the weapons bays (in the fighter role initially just 2 AIM-120 and just 2 Aim-9) and in the bomb role 2 large JDAM and 2 AIM-9 missiles...

It also has stealth capability, the best and most up to date electronics INCLUDING radar and air-to-air systems. As the systems information and flight test data is all classified to, its a big call to say its not the right plane.

Its a MULTI-ROLE aircraft, no different to the F/A-18A+ it is replacing.

Oh but people say... it can carry weapons under the wings... goodo, then you have a plane which has a bigger radar return thus negating its so called "sealthy features".

Different situations will require different weapons loadouts. Even ignoring the Stealth aspect, its system integration is a generation beyond anything else in service or under developement...and that includes the F-22!

Its the first day of the conflict, you send the birds in on internal payloads to maximise stealth and take out enemy birds on the ground with precision ordinance. Day 10: Full external war loads for A-2-A and A-2-G.

They will also have AEW&C support from wedgetail.

And better still is that it wont be cleared to carry drop tanks (EVER) so much for long range flying... itll need a lot of tanker support to go anywhere.

Why wont it be cleared for External Fuel? Plus you ignore the fact that it has a longer range on internal fuel then the F/A-18's and that the RAAF received the last of their new Tankers in December.

Our $200million non-refundable "buy in" (previous governement) was a total crock too as it didnt pay for a single plane, but just to be a "partner" in some 3rd level development of maybe the ciggie lighter or a landing light....

It got us a say in the development of the plane, plus gave local industry a chance to bid on construction work, work that they would likely keep now even if we didn't buy a single aircraft. It would surprise me greatly if that work gave a net profit of less than $200 million over the course of the entire F-35 program.

[Road_Warrior]

Agreed, the whole program is a crock and we should pull out of it.

Better off buying something off the shelf already proven in service, like the Typhoon. These would complement the Super Hornets quite nicely IMO

Oh and the thing about the single engine, this was the argument against choosing the F-16 over the F/A-18 back in the day, why the about face?

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Agreed, the whole program is a crock and we should pull out of it.

Better off buying something off the shelf already proven in service, like the Typhoon. These would complement the Super Hornets quite nicely IMO

Lols, better off?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03..._nao_analysis/

This shows the acquisition cost of the Eurofighter/Typhoon in an even worse light than it had previously appeared, when an RAF fleet of 160 had been expected. It is now acknowledged that the development and production cost to the UK of Eurofighter will be £23bn with planned upgrades.

This means that we UK taxpayers will have shelled out no less than £215m for each of our 107 jets – that's $350m at today's rates, rather more than the US taxpayers have been made to pay for each of their 185 Raptor superfighters2, almost all of which will be used operationally. And the Raptor has third-generation Stealth: the Eurofighter has no stealth features at all. The Raptor has thrust vectoring for unbeatable manoeuvrability in a dogfight: the Eurofighter doesn't.

There are indications of problems with the collaborative contracts for the supply of spares and repair of equipment. There have been shortages of spares and long timescales for equipment repairs on some of these contracts ...

The [2008] spares procurement contract does not include penalties for late delivery ...

To compensate, the Department [the MoD] has had to take parts from some of its Typhoon aircraft to make other aircraft available to fly

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Lols, better off?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03..._nao_analysis/

At least the Typhoon is in service and proven, whereas the JSF is turning out like being, for all intents and purposes, vapourware.

Even better if we could get our hands on the F-22, but US law won't allow it to be sold to a foreign power.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

At least the Typhoon is in service and proven, whereas the JSF is turning out like being, for all intents and purposes, vapourware.

Even better if we could get our hands on the F-22, but US law won't allow it to be sold to a foreign power.

Its turning into a money pit.... the "solution" to some of the problems is to keep production going and sort it out later!!!! As stopping production now would be cost prohibitive.... However i can see soon that anymore delays and cost blowouts that the whole thing may be scrapped.. heres hoping!

[XR Martin]

Looks pretty impressive to me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE&

[Peuty]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Looks pretty impressive to me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE&

We aren't getting that model.

Fact remains that it's just the wrong plane for our country, but the Yanks wouldn't sell us the right plane (F22).

[Streets]

They should've played Battlefield 3 before they signed anything. Everybody knows that an Su will eat an F-35 for breakfast.

[My poor XF]

Originally Posted by Streets

They should've played Battlefield 3 before they signed anything. Everybody knows that an Su will eat an F-35 for breakfast.

Not if I'm flying it lol.

I personally think the russian 4.5 and 5th gen fighter/multi role aircraft would be better aircraft to acquire. Won't happen though.

[Peuty]

Originally Posted by My poor XF

Not if I'm flying it lol.

I personally think the russian 4.5 and 5th gen fighter/multi role aircraft would be better aircraft to acquire. Won't happen though.

Of course it won't happen.

Politically and practically. Say goodbye to parts commonality with the US, along with their pilot/personnel exchange program. Refueling from NATO tankers would be out of the question as well - plus a whole bunch of other stuff.

[BHDOGS]

we should just build our own we did it with submarines we couldnt build it worse then there doing at present hahaha

[2011G6E]

Now if our closest bestest friends the Americans had let us buy the off-the-shelf F22 Raptor, there'd be no problem...but there's a standing instruction that it isn't to be sold to any foreign power...even friends and allies.

Some odd decisions going on lately with defence...they seem to be dazzled by anything new and shiny.
Take the F111...it was replaced by a plane (the F18 Super Hornet) that can't fly as far, as fast, as high, as low (terrain following radar), or carry the same bomb load as the old plane could...yep...makes perfect sense...

Sometimes it's better to keep the old car you have in the shed and keep spending a few dollars keeping it on the road than to go to the latest new model that isn't as good...

[74_XB_Ute]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Sometimes it's better to keep the old car you have in the shed and keep spending a few dollars keeping it on the road than to go to the latest new model that isn't as good...

You cant keep the old car going when there is absolutely no spare parts for it and you simply cant just fit some reproduction import that doesn't quite just meet spec. In 1997 when the US decided to stop flying F-111's is was a matter of procuring anything we could and things were going to get harder to source from that point on. No company is going to stand up a production line to keep a handful of foreign owned jets running.....and a handful is what we had compared to the US fleet of F-111's. The aussie government was paying premium dollars to US companies for short production runs of spares. There's also only so much patch work you can keep doing to the F-111 airframes before it was just not viable to keep maintaining....corrosion and fuel tanks for example.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Now if our closest bestest friends the Americans had let us buy the off-the-shelf F22 Raptor, there'd be no problem...but there's a standing instruction that it isn't to be sold to any foreign power...even friends and allies.

Some odd decisions going on lately with defence...they seem to be dazzled by anything new and shiny.
Take the F111...it was replaced by a plane (the F18 Super Hornet) that can't fly as far, as fast, as high, as low (terrain following radar), or carry the same bomb load as the old plane could...yep...makes perfect sense...

Sometimes it's better to keep the old car you have in the shed and keep spending a few dollars keeping it on the road than to go to the latest new model that isn't as good...

Maybe the Yanks have learnt to stop supplying weapons to other countries that end up using them against them.

Afghanis using Stingers against US helicopters for example.

I guess its easier to stop supplying weapons to allies who may become potential enemies than it is to not start wars with them in the first place.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

we should just build our own we did it with submarines we couldnt build it worse then there doing at present hahaha

lol

Actually I was thinking about the subs the other day, we should invest in unmanned submarines because we can't even muster enough crews for the 6 we have now, let alone 12 future subs that Labor wants.

A fleet of 4 manned and 6 unmanned subs would work well.

[TruBlu351]

Maverick.....I mean Goose!!....that was a $300M initial buy-in to be part of the JSF development phase.

I thought the nose gear was going to fold up sideways on the video @ 2:57! Looks rather flimsy......there'll be a redesign on that in 6 months!

2011G6E....although the F-111 is rather nostalgic and does cool dump and burns, the Super Hornet would run rings around it in almost every area, except in a 50 mile drag race over the salt flats. Remember, more bombs doesn't necessarily mean more targets destroyed and increased lethality. Whist the F-111 was a workhorse WRT load capacity, you also need to consider the type of weapons being carried. The Super Hornet has much better accuracy and even stand-off capability with the weapons it carries compared to the F-111. The only reason it had to go into a target area low and fast is because back in the 70's they never had the weapons technology we have today.....so you had to go and hand deliver your bombs on the front door step, wilst avoiding some big supersonic pointy phone poles - hopefully the low and fast bit meant you didn't get shot at. These days with GPS guided (glide) stand-off weapons, the game has changed.

The F-111 also couldn't fight its way into or out of a wet paper bag. Depending on the air threat, it might need someone holding it's hand. ie: it wasn't very multi-role......but it'd be OK going up against some 3rd world country 2000 miles away against a few Cessnas.

The decision to go 2 engines on the JSF simply boils down to dollars but not much sense to pardon the pun!! Engineers and bean counters vs a pilot wanting some level of redundancy incase one engine decides to take a rest. I had a chat a few years back with some of the Lockheed Martin JSF team.....and they simply based the single engine decision on statistics based on other single engine aircraft such as the F-16. A jet with two engines obviously costs more and losing an entire jet due to engine failure is expensive too....but when they weighed up the cost over the life of type of the aircraft.....ie: initial cost, ongoing maintenance etc of a twin eng jet say over 30+ years compared to losing a few jets over that time....statistically, after looking at the reliability they expect - it's more cost effective to accept a few airframe losses than supply and maintain the fleet for 3+ decades.

Should just get the Sea Sprites back and strap on some new radars and amraams.....and a door gun!!

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by TruBlu351

Maverick.....I mean Goose!!....that was a $300M initial buy-in to be part of the JSF development phase.

Whats a hundred million between friends?? lol..

Originally Posted by TruBlu351

The decision to go 2 engines on the JSF simply boils down to dollars but not much sense to pardon the pun!! Engineers and bean counters vs a pilot wanting some level of redundancy incase one engine decides to take a rest. I had a chat a few years back with some of the Lockheed Martin JSF team.....and they simply based the single engine decision on statistics based on other single engine aircraft such as the F-16. A jet with two engines obviously costs more and losing an entire jet due to engine failure is expensive too....but when they weighed up the cost over the life of type of the aircraft.....ie: initial cost, ongoing maintenance etc of a twin eng jet say over 30+ years compared to losing a few jets over that time....statistically, after looking at the reliability they expect - it's more cost effective to accept a few airframe losses than supply and maintain the fleet for 3+ decades.

Should just get the Sea Sprites back and strap on some new radars and amraams.....and a door gun!!

Sadly one engine over water no matter how "hi tech" it is.... isnt good enough. Ask a pilot how many engines he wants when he is over water.

At least the Hornet and F-111 would/ should make it back to land on one engine if something goes pear shaped. The Super Hornets were all ferried from the USA, I daresay the F-35 when its finnally ready for delivery will be put in a C-17 and flown here. Could you imagine loosing $110million or so because it ditched in the pacific on a ferry flight?. (And again this aircraft WONT be cleared to fly with drop tanks).

The designers sadly much like management is only interested in making money and to squeeze as much into a small airframe as possible.
Sadly this sort of aircraft wont be as "buyable" as the F-16 was (some 26 nations use the little F-16) because of its extreme high cost and expensive avionics. Its also impossible to repair this type of aircraft quickly should it be damaged in combat.

Not to mention a senate inquiry shouldve been held on the whole process of how we (Australia) "decided" to buy into this program.
The F-35 was NEVER offered to Australia when the RAAF was running the AIR2000 (?)back in the 1990s. There was 4 aircraft on the short list and the F-35 at that time was still in the desing stage and a prototype wasnt even built when we bought into the program. The whole selection process was dumped without warning and we decided on the F-35.

[Peuty]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Ask a pilot how many engines he wants when he is over water.

I think you just did.

[Peuty]

Iran with their F14's.

Not that any of them would be airworthy.

[z80]

Consider the 300 million as the cost of protection by our US "friends" for a few nanoseconds.

[74_XB_Ute]

I guess one good thing to come from being part of the JSF buy in is it seems some of the local industry have picked up contracts for production. There's an engineering company here in Brisbane machining components for JSF bomb racks.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by 74_XB_Ute

I guess one good thing to come from being part of the JSF buy in is it seems some of the local industry have picked up contracts for production. There's an engineering company here in Brisbane machining components for JSF bomb racks.

But is the end cost worth it?

As is being said the f-35 is turning into a money pit for the US government and has failed to meet expectations. The UK is considering dumping the F-35 as well as Australia is reconsidering how many we buy. We have ordered 14 (a planned 80 to 100 though nothing ever confirmed).

In the end in order to buy the projected 100 or so at an estimated $130million EACH (which the price already doubled and still climbing) plus our no-refundable 200..er 300million, it will cost the aussie tax payer over $14billion...... oh but i hear people say we must have the bset?!

Clearly it isnt the best... and certianly DMO, Defence and the Australian Gov in general has shown us how poorly some of the decisions have been over the decades when it comes down to buying stuff for defence....

Our Subs, the Seaprite debarcle ($700million or so down the drain for something which NEVER entered service fully), 2nd hand refurbished main battle tanks (been better off with smaller one but hey) which needed new trucks and trailers (no one thought of that when we bought them), body armour which was no good, rusty old 2nd hand ships, landing craft sitting at Townsville which are unusuable, shoes which fall apart.... to mention a few

Sorry but a few jobs in Brisbane hardly cuts the mustard when billions are wasted

[74_XB_Ute]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

But is the end cost worth it?

Sorry but a few jobs in Brisbane hardly cuts the mustard when billions are wasted

Unfortunately wasted $$$ is an everyday occurence in the Defence Force. It won't ever change....it's just the way it is. But when money is spent whether it be a waste or not it helps the big wheel turn and helps keep food on the table for some lucky chap

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by 74_XB_Ute

Unfortunately wasted $$$ is an everyday occurence in the Defence Force. It won't ever change....it's just the way it is. But when money is spent whether it be a waste or not it helps the big wheel turn and helps keep food on the table for some lucky chap

Theres waste, and there's blatantly taking the ****. Need I mention the Seasprite project? Case in point.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

and certianly DMO, Defence and the Australian Gov in general has shown us how poorly some of the decisions have been over the decades when it comes down to buying stuff for defence....

....... 2nd hand refurbished main battle tanks (been better off with smaller one but hey)

Rubbish comment, M1A1 AIM SA is great value for money as far as a MTB goes, these are rebuild to new, so saying they are '2nd hand' is misleading. They are a zero miles as new tank.

Perhaps a 2nd had leopard 2 or Challenger 2 should have been purchased out of "old stock" for twice the price ?