Years on, and over $50B-plus later, the F-35 is not ready to be a part of any future U.S. DOD force structure, especially with significant budget cutting where money is taken away from day-to-day operations. The Secretary of the USAF has stated that flying hours, operations, and other core capability will be cut.
Yet the huge disconnect is that they are willing to commit more money and time to a failed tac-air recap project known as the F-35. It is hard to listen to ANY DOD official talk about cutting operational hours and take them seriously when they are unwilling to cancel failed programs.
The U.S. DOD test community has released its 2012 evaluation of the F-35. You can read it at the bottom of this post. Again, like previous years, there are problems still not fixed. The aircraft is unlikely to be affordable, sustainable, lethal or survivable.
Combat survivability appliances removed to save weight some year ago are resulting in a 25pc increase in vulnerability. Yet weight margins on the A-model are just .42pc. Terrible when you consider historical weight growth of other aircraft designs. And we still have no known operational empty weight because there is nowhere close to a finished go-to-war jet to evaluate.
Just like the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Joint Operational Requirement Document (JORD),--written in the 1990s and signed off on at the beginning of the last decade stated that sortie rates should be "significantly" better than legacy aircraft, survivability was supposed to be better than legacy. A 25pc increase in vulnerability is one of many signs that the project management assumptions of this aircraft are out of control.
Yet again, the JORD stands out as a sign of what the F-35 will never be able to reach: its' core requirements; its' reason to exist. Also today, the JORD is obsolete to the threat. It assumed there would always be plenty of F-22s around to do the high threat work. That didn't happen.
In other words, the U.S. wants to do a Pacific pivot using the Brewster Buffalo as its crown jewel.
Six years after first-flight, test point goals are behind for 2012. With all the hype of things like deliveries to Yuma, there is still no credible combat capability in test or mission systems.
The "we are building mistake-jets at the cost of billions" syndrome still exists.
There are still flight envelop restrictions and even the "anything is possible if you are willing to lower your expectations", belief system:
F-35A-
"The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by 8 seconds. These changes were due to the results of air vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations."
F-35B-
"The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35B, reducing turn performance from 5.0 to 4.5 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by 16 seconds. These changes were due to the results of air vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations."
F-35C-
"The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35C, reducing turn performance from 5.1 to 5.0 sustained g’s and increasing the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by at least 43 seconds. These changes were due to the results of air vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations."
Air-refueling issues still exist, and it looks like pointing weapons bay doors inward has a price:
"This was primarily a result of higher-than-expected loads on weapon bay doors, which prevented planned envelope expansion test points and required additional unplanned testing."
Risks like this were predicted by independent experts years ago. More importantly, that marketing people and poor management of engineers was creating a rose coloured glasses problem at the start of the program. After all, it was hyped for all to hear, that critical design review of the F-35 passed in 2007 yet things like the core F-35C need of trapping on a carrier have now become vultures circling overhead.
Significant F-35B STOVL airframe appliance problems identified a year ago, still have question marks around fixing them. There are claims of fixes in the coming years but progress is slow. (page 31-32) Yet, the DOD boss believed the lie from cheerleaders like the USMC general Amos and others and removed the F-35B from the Gates 2 year probation...a year early.
Fraud.
With all the hype in 2012 of doing initial stores clearance and misleading claims of weapons capability in press releases, the program has a long haul of years with software and other engineering realities. Weapon system issues include:
- Instrumentation
- Data recording shortfalls
- Deficient mission systems performance in radar,Electro‐Optical Targeting System (EOTS), fusion, and the helmet
- Lack of radar fusion support to the AIM-120 air-to-air missile
- EOTS inability to accurately track and designate targets for the air-to-ground munitions
- Deficient fused situational awareness presentation to the pilot
Structural integrity of the airframe is still an unknown yet we as the taxpayer still have to procure billions of mistake jet production lots per year. More cracks and other wear issues have shown up this last year requiring more fixes for the scores of existing mistake-jets.
Read the rest of the report below. Astonishing how the Joint Chief of Staff just had a press conference fear-mongering DOD budget cuts in that operational capability would suffer defunding, yet, refused to mention that dud programs like the F-35 and LCS--billions in waste--still get to breath air.
An industry observer commented that in order for the United States Marketing Corps to meet its' target of deploying early, the jet will need to sling a legacy electro-optical targeting Pod (seen on aircraft like the F-16 and F-18) as the F-35 EOTS field of view is OK for interdiction, but not for close air support. That the aircraft will need a HUD, with a common helmet, and any other number of fixes to help this pretend weapon system drop a precision guided bomb in a permissive-air environment.
Again, fraud. A very big fraud.
18 comments:
Block 1 software not even done,important test points not validated, more hardware problems. Wonder why any customer would buy F-35 for more then testing purposes. A completly watered down Block 3 software F-35 is most unlikly to be ready for full production in 2017. This is just not gonne work people its that simple.
"...Aircraft operating limitations, which prevented the extended use of afterburner needed to complete high‑altitude/high‑airspeed test points....Horizontal tail surfaces are experiencing higher
than expected temperatures during sustained high‑speed/ high‑altitude flight, resulting in
delamination and scorching of the surface coatings
and structure."
Are they still having problems with full AB burning through? It would appear so, is this the reason they are going slower thru Mach1? They can't go full AB so acceleration is slower? What happens in a few years when F35 will only get heavier,it will end up just going slower, great....
With all of the weight and structure problems have they given up on the promised external fuel tanks and weapon stores?
To Nico,
it's probably for the better if F-35 needs to accelerate through Mach 1.0 in a lower AB setting anyway.
An opponent with large aperture IRST would most likely be able to spot a full-After-Burning F-35 at least 75-100nm away with it's massive torch shooting out the tail engulfing the sky. At least an IRST-equipped F-15E, F-16, or Super Hornet by 2017 Red Flag could?
And with respect to aircraft damage during higher-speed, higher altitude flight... greater than Mach 1.2 performance is too much capability for any country to have in the first place! So why not just reduce the required max operating speed and max operating altitudes and be happy with what you have!
Everything will be fine.
I just went through this report this morning and I was simply stunned at the multitude of serious problems with all three of the JSF variants.
How on earth could the DoD kill the in production and workable F-22 while continuing to support the F-35? At this point it should be obvious to everyone that the F-35 is a complete failure and recap of US air power can't be accomplished with this aircraft.
At this rate we'll be flying F-15's for another 20 years beyond their appropriate airframe life!
Enough is enough. Since we are in unilateral disarmament mode, I hope Sec of Defense Hagel will freeze the F-35 program and will make up the Tacair shortfall with new F-15SE and F-16s and F-18s until the next gen fighter is available (?FXX anybody). This is just unbelievable. Too big too fail is just a big failure. And upgrade the F-22.
If the aircraft lack in acceleration there is still the possibility of adding a wartime setting to the engine.
Usually air combats last no more than a few minutes so I guess using 10% more thrust for such a short time would be ok for the engine.
The F-35 HAS to be able to accelerate quickly enough in transsonic on AB and at least maintain Mach 1.2 without afterburner.
Increasing the thrust would also help the sustained turn.
As for the B, considering all the problems, maybe it would be wiser at this point to use the STOVL mode as a secondary capability.
The Bs could be used on land bases with a tank replacing the lift fan, and it the situation requires the aircraft to be deployed on ships, the lift fan can be put back.
The pilots would train on simulators for stovl practice.
It would also be a very good idea to develop the JDRADM or at least a substantially better AMRAAM - dual mode seeker, propulsion upgrade - to make sure the F-35 is as good as possible in BVR.
"Increasing the thrust would also help the sustained turn"
Probably not. Since the aircraft is already at super-thin weight margins and big unknowns with weak/fatigue areas, there are big limits in this regard.
In the end, with a flawed requirement, and now certainly, a seriously flawed design, we are approaching breach of contract and the only logical thing to do is cancel the program.
The F-35 is the wrong aircraft. We need to take all the talent used to build the wrong aircraft and get them to build the right aircraft.
Eric,
The F-35 is not perfect but it would take 10-15 years to develop and start producing a similar aircraft. I am not sure it would be worth it to gain 10-20% of raw performance.
Concerning the engine, I was thinking of a software configuration which could eventually be activated with a switch in the cockpit. From what I have read, the typhoon has that capability.
The F135 has demonstrated during tests that it can produce significantly more thrust than 43000lbs, so adding 10% of thrust for a few minutes could well be possible.
As for the BVR missile, it might be possible to arm the F-35 with a mix of meteors and AMRAAMs. 2 meteors could be carried on the a/a stations and 4 AMRAAMs on the a/g stations - 6 meteors would not fit -. That would give the F-35 2 first salvoes, one at 150km with meteors, one at 100km with 120Ds. If each salvo has a 50% pk, the F-35 would have killed 75% of its targets before it is detected.
For the US it might also be possible to mate the AMRAAM with the meteor motor, and build the motor under licence.
These 2 modifications would be very cost effective compared to developing a new aircraft, and the LHAs would not lose their fixed wing capability.
Given the fact that the F-35 is in such trouble now without even getting the mission systems sorted out, all that sounds like wishful thinking. We don't have the money to put into an aircraft that is this faulty and has a cost per flying hour way above an F-15E without the utility that an F-15E brings to the joint combat commander.
Nick, I'm not sure it's accurate analysis to assume your 50% pK rate for an MRAAM round fired at 'Max' range. If they can get 40% pK at a NEZ range vs a modernized high-performance fighter, it would probably be a pretty darn good capability.
The only other possible problem with your scenario and assessment would be that the 'other guy' might also be mounting a next-gen MRAAM with superior range than yours and equal pK! And to assume that the other guy in this future 2018-2020 scenario can't see you or target you via 3rd party, etc, when entering into NEZ, would be a highly speculative and arguably irresponsible assumption for a fighter pilot. (Especially an F-35 pilot which would rapidly become at a disadvantage once he entered into and rapidly closed head-on in a WVR engagement vs a sufficiently armed, superior performing next-gen opponent).
Nick says:
"The F135 has demonstrated during tests that it can produce significantly more thrust than 43000lbs, so adding 10% of thrust for a few minutes could well be possible."
Just how 'significantly' is this 'more thrust' you say the F135 produced?
And can you tell us all just where and when was this all demonstrated?
Eric, your comment "F-35 is in such trouble now without even getting the mission systems sorted out" sounds like the wishful thinking!
The whole JSF Program has been based on wishful thinking, absurd optimism and a conspiracy of hope.
Hope is not a strategy and the DOT&E report card shows this is the case.
It also shows the JSF aircraft is not coming within a bull's roar of the already quite mediocre requirement in the JORD, the designs are riddled with single points of failure, and many of the key aspects of the designs have been painted into what Engineers call "Coffin Corner".
However, as Lockmart and it's marketeers say, none of this is new , particularly as APA predicted these outcomes years ago and it's all on the Australian public record and in the Parliamentary Hansard.
>>Anonymous said...
>>Nick, I'm not sure it's accurate analysis to assume your 50% pK rate for an MRAAM round fired at 'Max' range. If they can get 40% pK at a NEZ range vs a modernized high-performance fighter, it would probably be a pretty darn good capability.
Imo a stealth aircraft should be able to give its missile a better pk because its stealth allows is to guide its missile until impact. A non stealth aircraft might get 25% pk at max NEZ range while an F-35 might get 50%.
>>The only other possible problem with your scenario and assessment would be that the 'other guy' might also be mounting a next-gen MRAAM with superior range than yours and equal pK! And to assume that the other guy in this future 2018-2020 scenario can't see you or target you via 3rd party, etc, when entering into NEZ, would be a highly speculative and arguably irresponsible assumption for a fighter pilot. (Especially an F-35 pilot which would rapidly become at a disadvantage once he entered into and rapidly closed head-on in a WVR engagement vs a sufficiently armed, superior performing next-gen opponent).
The F-35 should be armed with the best possible BVR missile otherwise what's the point of a stealth aircraft? The 120D is very good now, it will be upgraded with a new dual pulse motor within a few years. In the long term something even better is needed, either JDRADM or a much improved AMRAAM.
With the best missile available it should have 50% pk. I also question the idea of giving the best missiles available to the 4 gens. The 120Ds should go to the stealth aircraft and not to legacy fighters, because stealth aircraft can give them a higher pk, and because they are far less likely to be shot down before they've launched all their missiles. Giving 4-6 120Ds to an F-15C is just a waste of good missiles because the F-15 is like 5 times more likely to be shot down in BVR so will never be able to use its precious missiles.
Imo a stealth aircraft should be able to give its missile a better pk because its stealth allows is to guide its missile until impact. A non stealth aircraft might get 25% pk at max NEZ range while an F-35 might get 50%."
Huh???? The F-35 has a lot more basic problems before it even gets to that hope and dream.
"The 120D is very good now,"
Actually it is not. QC problem with motors have delayed deliveries for over a year.
And at $2.35M per warshot with such a low PK against something that can jam it out or kill the F-35 out-right, the only thing that could help once they get it working is to put an AIM-9 seeker on it for terminal...if it ever gets that lucky.... Funny how we complained about the Phoenix when it was $1M per warshot.
>>Huh???? The F-35 has a lot more basic problems before it even gets to that hope and dream.
Huh??? And its opponent will have even more problems trying to detect the F-35 to begin with.
And it is ridiculous to assume that F-35 pilots will necessarily want to use their AB.
They may use their AB to get to supersonic speed at long range, like the F-22 does. And guess what, the F-22 has TWO engines, so roughly twice the IR signature during the acceleration.
>>Actually it is not. QC problem with motors have delayed deliveries for over a year.
>>And at $2.35M per warshot with such a low PK against something that can jam it out or kill the F-35 out-right, the only thing that could help once they get it working is to put an AIM-9 seeker on it for terminal...if it ever gets that lucky.... Funny how we complained about the Phoenix when it was $1M per warshot.
The problem of the 120D has been solved and from what I've read from GAO documents its unit replacement cost is around 750k, I don't know where you got your figure.
An IIR variant might be a plus but at this point I think going directly to a dual mode seeker would be a better idea, given that raytheon is already working on various multi mode seekers.
The next variant of the AMRAAM is expected to only have propulsion improvements ( dual pulse ), but I don't see why they couldn't start working on integrating a new seeker at the same time if the JDRADM is not restarted. An AESA antenna combined with IIR would be a huge improvement, especially if the missile has its second pulse for better end-game manoeuvrability and good mid course updates from the stealth aircraft...
Post a Comment