The F-35 is not dead

[AuxBatOn]

Rockie,

All 4 times I shutdown an engine ended up being a sensor problem. No damage to the engine possible...

[Spokes]

I suppose it would be possible to dance around the one engine two engine question forever. I count 37 pages of that. If the F-35 is included in what ever competition eventually comes, I'm sure it would be up to Lockheed to make their case. I don't doubt that there would be competent people at NDHQ to make the choice. I suspect the MTBF for the engine would be a big factor. Is there data for the engine in the thing? I would also assume the cost of a catastrophic failure leading to the loss of aircraft, cost of sufficient SAR, cost of aircrew training for arctic survival would also all be in the mix. I too would not like to try to build an igloo by myself. It was a big enough job for two of us. The snow cave was cosy though.

I initially had my doubts about something like the F-18E and the others, but who am I to argue with the experience. If a fighter pilot tell me it would do the job, I can buy that. I too had my doubts about the single engine issue. However if that engine has a proven reliability, and pilots are good with it, then again who am I to argue. We send hundreds of passengers across the ocean based on engine reliability. (I know ETOPS is more than that, but engine reliability is a big part).

Ultimately I suppose it would come down to analysis of cost. The F-35 does seem to me to be at a disadvantage here, but I could not say for sure. Lots of variables.

[Rockie]

"Norman did sound a warning, though. It is possible to buy too few ships, he said. Whatever capability Canada's new warships end up possessing, quantity still has its own quality. No matter how good the ship is, it can only be in one place at one time"

Vice-Admiral David Norman (Commanding Officer of the RCN) talking about the ballooning cost of the new ship program and the option to get fewer ships. Sounds familiar as it applies to the CF18 replacement.

[Spokes]

It seems to be a common thread in pretty much all major procurement projects.

[frosti]

"Norman did sound a warning, though. It is possible to buy too few ships, he said. Whatever capability Canada's new warships end up possessing, quantity still has its own quality. No matter how good the ship is, it can only be in one place at one time"

Vice-Admiral David Norman (Commanding Officer of the RCN) talking about the ballooning cost of the new ship program and the option to get fewer ships. Sounds familiar as it applies to the CF18 replacement.

Only a stupid Canadian politician would have thought that a new class of ships, three being high end air warfare, could be built for under a Billion dollars each. Doing the design work yourself and building them in Canada adds considerable costs. I'm glad we aren't stupid enough to try and build our own fighter. There are however idiots out there who think they know better.

[2R]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... o_fly.html

I wonder if Justinhale reads the Alibaba sponsored sites ?



The F-35 has been around as long as global warming. The aircraft had its origin in the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program started by the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy in 1993. The word "Strike" in the designation of this program indicates that it was oriented toward developing a light bomber. The following year, the JAST program absorbed the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter program and a separate short take-off/vertical landing program. This became the Joint Strike Fighter program, with the aim of producing a common airframe and engine across the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Marine Corps. This aircraft was claimed to be 20 percent cheaper to acquire and operate than legacy aircraft such as the F-16. That was the intent. Lockheed Martin won the flyoff against Boeing in 2001.

Many years then passed. The production prototype F-35 first flew in 2006.

The flying characteristics of an aircraft can be determined from its statistics – that is, things like the weight divided by the wing area, weight relative to thrust, etc. The F-35 was still a light bomber. Its engine is optimized for operating at about 20,000 feet. By 2008, simulations had shown that the F-35 was not fit to be a fighter aircraft. This was in a RAND study by Dr. John Stillion, which concluded that the F-35 "can't turn, can't climb, can't run."

Now, ten years after the F-35 first flew, it remains in development, though 180 have been built. None of those aircraft can operate in combat; all will have to be modified if and when the final design has been settled on. There is not much point in doing that, because the F-35 has a number of show-stoppers that would kill it instantly in a rational world. These include:
1.The F-35's engine is failing at too high a rate, and its reliability is not improving fast enough to be approved for operational use. The F-35 has a poorly designed, unreliable engine – the largest, hottest, and heaviest engine ever put in a fighter plane. It is a highly stressed derivative of the F119 engine, which powers the F-22. Because of the need to drive the F-35B lift fan, it is about 2,000 lbs heavier than other combat jet engines of comparable thrust. The project recognized the engine's limitations in 2012 by announcing an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing sustained turn performance from 9.0g to 4.6g and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by 8 seconds. As in September 2014, the Government Accountability Office reported that "[d]ata provided by Pratt & Whitney indicate that the mean flight hours between failure for the F-35A engine is about 21 percent of where the engine was expected to be at this point in the program." But engine reliability is not improving; it has flatlined.
2.The F-35 requires a runway at least 8,000 feet long to operate from. By comparison, the F-16's minimum runway length requirement is 3,000 feet.
3.The F-35's operating cost of $50,000 per hour means that we won't be able to afford to give its pilots enough flying time to be fully proficient. The same problem afflicts the F-22 with its $70,000-per-hour operating cost. Raptor pilots get 10 to 12 hours per month in the cockpit when 20 hours are needed to be able to make split-second decisions in combat.
4.Being designed as a light bomber, the F-35 is less maneuverable than fighter designs up to 50 years old and will be shot out of the sky by modern fighter aircraft. Thus, it wasn't a surprise when an F-16 outflew an F-35 in mock combat in early 2015, a result entirely predictable from simulation. What is telling is that the F-35 is not being flown against other aircraft types on an at least monthly basis. The latest derivative of the Su-27 Flanker, the Su-35, is expected to be able to shoot down 2.4 F-35s for every Su-35 lost. China is in the process of acquiring 24 Su-35s. In combat, those 24 Chinese Su-35s will shoot down 58 F-35s before all being shot down themselves. The Russians have followed the Su-35 with the T-50, which will be close to the F-22 in combat effectiveness but without the cost of maintaining the radar-absorbant material (RAM) coating.
5.The F-35 uses its fuel for cooling its electronics. The aircraft won't start if its fuel is too warm, making deployment in warmer regions problematic. At the Yuma and Luke U.S. Air Force bases in Arizona, fuel trucks for the F-35 are painted white, parked in covered bays, and chilled with water mist systems because the jet won't even start if the fuel is already too warm to cool the electronics.
6.The F-35 has a logistics system (ALIS) that requires an internet connection to a centralized maintenance system in the United States. ALIS is kept permanently informed of each aircraft's technical status and maintenance requirements. ALIS can, and has, prevented aircraft taking off because of an incomplete data file. If the internet link is down, the aircraft can't fly even if there is nothing wrong with it. This is one of the more bizarre problems. It could lead to a situation in which enemy aircraft are inbound and the F-35s are refueled and ready to go but can't take off to meet the threat.

Those are the known show-stoppers; the F-35 has many other mere deficiencies. Embarrased by having 180 aircraft that can't actually fight, the head of the F-35 program, General Bogden, has decided to make December 2016 the make-or-break date for the program.The Department of Defense has started backing away from it and is contemplating buying more F-15s and F-16s to fill the USAF's capability gap.This may be the year that the F-35 nightmare ends.

David Archibald is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery 2014).

[thirdtimecharm]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... o_fly.html

2.The F-35 requires a runway at least 8,000 feet long to operate from. By comparison, the F-16's minimum runway length requirement is 3,000 feet.


David Archibald is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery 2014).

That's really interesting... if Canada bought the F-35 then that basically kills the FOL sites in the North as only Iqaluit has a runway long enough for the aircraft? YZF, YRT and YEV wouldn't be usable (not that they are used now anyway).

Presumably there are plans locked away somewhere that make running these facilities for 25 years worthwhile? How would Canada deal with an over the pole assault?

I kind of hope that we get to find out how many Twin Otters could fit in those bays one day, though

[Mach1]

[2R]

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/20 ... 10/125105/

Looks like they want to keep the A-10 flying . A plane built around one of the most destructive guns ever made. The A-10 puts the awe in awesome .

[rigpiggy]

Yet the Danes built Absalon/Iver Huitfeldt class for under 400M each in 2012 even including inflation should be well under 1B$ each. This is corporate welfare for Irving/Bae they haven't cut one piece of metal, and are already double the budget..... 30B$ no, it will be 50B if were lucky. Get the danes to build the sections float em over, have the shipyards assemble, finish

"Norman did sound a warning, though. It is possible to buy too few ships, he said. Whatever capability Canada's new warships end up possessing, quantity still has its own quality. No matter how good the ship is, it can only be in one place at one time"

Vice-Admiral David Norman (Commanding Officer of the RCN) talking about the ballooning cost of the new ship program and the option to get fewer ships. Sounds familiar as it applies to the CF18 replacement.

Only a stupid Canadian politician would have thought that a new class of ships, three being high end air warfare, could be built for under a Billion dollars each. Doing the design work yourself and building them in Canada adds considerable costs. I'm glad we aren't stupid enough to try and build our own fighter. There are however idiots out there who think they know better.

[Old fella]

Canadian Press has reported in today's budget "procurement"has been punted up until after 2020 or later for major capital spending, that would suggest no F-35 decision until then if at all......

[Moose47]

G'day Old fella

Not to mention the approximate 400 million dollar shortfall for this fiscal year according to the Defence Minister.

I can see some base closures coming.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... es-sources

Just another effen Lieberal promise broken!

Cheers...Chris

[Old fella]

Biggest f--- up done was buying those useless British subs that cost to many millions to buy and a greater number of millions to get them working, if they ever will, notwithstanding a sailor died from an onboard fire enroute to YHZ. Should have got Yank Nuke subs, at least have subs that work and can do the job. Back in the 90's we couldn't chase the Spanish tramp trawlers off the Grand Banks, probably can't do it now...........

[rigpiggy]

We didnt buy the subs, we traded for goose and suffield usage. What wa expensive was all the paperwork, logs, maintenance manuals etc....... Then let them sit for years guaranteeing all the valves would be frozen. Wrt the new jssc ships latest info from cp was 104Bn for the program.

[rigpiggy]

Rockie,

All 4 times I shutdown an engine ended up being a sensor problem. No damage to the engine possible...

3 of the 4 times i shutdown engines was due to oil loss, very happy I had the second engine

[trampbike]

How many of those times were in a fighter-type aircraft?

[Rockie]

How many of those times were in a fighter-type aircraft?

The point of a precautionary engine shutdown in a twin is to prevent further damage to it because there's something wrong with that engine or you've lost control of it. Nobody shuts one down just because they feel like it. And the ability to do a precautionary shutdown in the first place is thanks entirely to having another engine.

F-16 pilots don't do precautionary engine shutdowns, it either works or you're going for a silk ride.

[AuxBatOn]

Engines for different missions are not built to the same spec (and even engines built today are not built to the same specs as the engines of yesterday). Technology evolved, specs are more stringent. Failures will occur and airframes will be lost. But not at any different rates than we lost and losing Hornets now.

[trampbike]

How many of those times were in a fighter-type aircraft?

The point of a precautionary engine shutdown in a twin is to prevent further damage to it because there's something wrong with that engine or you've lost control of it. Nobody shuts one down just because they feel like it. And the ability to do a precautionary shutdown in the first place is thanks entirely to having another engine.

F-16 pilots don't do precautionary engine shutdowns, it either works or you're going for a silk ride.

Thanks for reminding me that I'm 4. I'll go back to eating toothpaste now.

[tailgunner]

If they push the decision to 2020, the ONLY aircraft available will be the F35. The Super Hornet is in the final year or so of production, and unless the Euro Typhoon wins any more orders, it will be out of production in a few years as well. The French may prolong the Rafael production, but it also has a few years left...

[Rockie]

Failures will occur and airframes will be lost. But not at any different rates than we lost and losing Hornets now.

Bold prediction for the future. Peter MacKay said much the same thing when he assured Canadians the F-35's engine would never quit.

Thanks for reminding me that I'm 4. I'll go back to eating toothpaste now.

No offence intended, but lots of people who should know better can't seem to recognize the radically different engine failure consequences between a single and a twin.

[Mick G]

I don't see Canada moving forward with it; for anybody holding their breath, it's not going to happen. The CF18 will be flying well into the 2030's just wait and see..........

[frosti]

I don't see Canada moving forward with it; for anybody holding their breath, it's not going to happen. The CF18 will be flying well into the 2030's just wait and see..........

I feel sorry for those brave pilots. I refuse to fly back-seat in those things any more, way too old.

[Spokes]

I don't see Canada moving forward with it; for anybody holding their breath, it's not going to happen. The CF18 will be flying well into the 2030's just wait and see..........

Of course. Heck, we are still flying Sea Kings.

[trampbike]

I feel sorry for those brave pilots. I refuse to fly back-seat in those things any more, way too old.

An empty (or non-existent) backseat is the best backseat