F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?

Started by bayonetbrant, November 09, 2013, 08:08:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

trailrunner

#135
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 23, 2017, 02:40:30 AM
I'm no engineer so I'd like to understand why this bloated looking aircraft is the next gen in air to air/ground combat?

This is how the F-35 was originally justified:

It is supposed to replace the AV-8 (USMC), A-10 (USAF), and the F/A-18 (USN).  Regarding the last point, remember that when the F-35 program started (mid 1990s), the super hornet (F/A-18E/F) program had not started.

You can argue whether the USMC needs a STOVL aircraft or not, but if you accept that it does, then the AV-8 certainly needs to be replaced.  It is an outdated design all the way around.  We all love the A-10, but it is also an old design.  While the F-35 was being produced, the Navy went ahead with the super Hornet, which turned out to be a pretty good system.

One thing that all of these legacy planes lack is stealth and the ability to suppress or defeat enemy air defenses, and the F-35 will have a robust capability in that area.  The F-35 will also have much better sensors, avionics, and data links.  Compared to the AV-8 and A-10, the F-35 is a big step forward.  Compared to the F/A-18E/F, it's a step forward, perhaps equivalent to moving from the F-15C to the F-22.

Early in the program, the commonality of design (USMC, USAF, USN) was a big selling point, and with an original buy of around 3,000 planes this would lead to a very affordable design.  I think at one point cost was a KPP (key performance parameter) but I could be wrong about this.  It was also supposed to be able to carry an incredible range of weapons, and it was an international program, helping our allies while at the same time contributing to a lower cost.

The F-35 was supposed to have a PHM (prognostics health maintenance) and ALIS (autonomous logistics information) system, which would predict failures before they happened and all that, leading to lower maintenance costs.  At the time, stories (which were true) how expensive the B-2 and F-22 were to maintain were starting to appear.

So that's the party line.  I haven't work on the F-35 for over a decade so I don't know what kind of performance it really wound up.  When I left, there were some pretty predictable problems cropping up when developing something as sophisticated as this.  First, the commonality did not live up to its promises, which was no surprise.  The commonality does have advantages, but it does drawbacks too, because the design has to be compromised to meet the needs of each service.  The original cost goal was not met, which again is absolutely no surprise.  Other issues, such as a few engine issues, and the oxygen problem, are not that unusual.

Most likely, right now software development and test is most likely what is pacing the development.  The amount and complexity of the software on this aircraft is completely mind boggling.  When I worked on F-22, software was a huge deal, but the F-35 has at least 10x the amount of software as the F-22.  Remember that F-22 development started in the early 1980s, whereas the F-35 starting around 1996.







JudgeDredd

wow. Thanks for that.

Has the F22 replaced the F-15 then or is that still ongoing or stopped?
Alba gu' brath

bayonetbrant

Quote from: trailrunner on June 23, 2017, 06:19:25 AMYou can argue whether the USMC needs a STOVL aircraft or not

After their experience in WWII when they were left begging for air support from the Navy several times, the USMC will argue all day, into tomorrow, that they need their own air support, and since their "carriers" (the amphibious assault ships) have short air decks, it has to be a STOVL plane.
The key to surviving this site is to not say something which ends up as someone's tag line - Steelgrave

"their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure." Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

bayonetbrant

Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 23, 2017, 06:27:20 AMHas the F22 replaced the F-15 then or is that still ongoing or stopped?

F22 production is wrapped.

IIRC, it was the F16 replacement, though, right?

I always learned it as:
F16 = primarily air-to-air fighter, can do other things, too, but designed to fight other aircraft
F15 = primarily a strike fighter, that can fight air-to-air well enough to defend itself, but not primarily to fight other aircraft


So the F22 = F16 replacement, and F35 = F15 replacement
The key to surviving this site is to not say something which ends up as someone's tag line - Steelgrave

"their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure." Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

JudgeDredd

Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 23, 2017, 06:31:29 AM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 23, 2017, 06:27:20 AMHas the F22 replaced the F-15 then or is that still ongoing or stopped?

F22 production is wrapped.

Yeah - just found it on WIKI thanks
The high cost of the aircraft, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of the more versatile F-35 led to the end of F-22 production.[N 1] A final procurement tally of 187 operational production aircraft was established in 2009, and the last F-22 was delivered to the USAF in 2012.
Alba gu' brath

trailrunner

Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 23, 2017, 06:27:20 AM
wow. Thanks for that.

Has the F22 replaced the F-15 then or is that still ongoing or stopped?

I think the only F-15s now being produced are for the foreign market.  However, US F-15s have been and are being upgraded, and they are a pretty capable system, both in terms of quality and quantity.  The F-22 can't replace the F-15 right now because there just aren't enough F-22s.  So instead of the high-low mix envisioned in the 1970s with the F-15 and F-16, we have a high-medium-low mix with the F-22, F-15, and F-16.



Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 23, 2017, 06:29:33 AM
Quote from: trailrunner on June 23, 2017, 06:19:25 AMYou can argue whether the USMC needs a STOVL aircraft or not

After their experience in WWII when they were left begging for air support from the Navy several times, the USMC will argue all day, into tomorrow, that they need their own air support, and since their "carriers" (the amphibious assault ships) have short air decks, it has to be a STOVL plane.

Yes, I heard that many times.  That seems to be a bulletproof discussion-stopper.  Even though times have changed in the last 70 years, nobody is brave enough to seriously challenge that assertion.  One thing I didn't realize when I started working in DoD is just how powerful (and silent) USMC lobbying is.

The amphib assault ships and the F-35 are a pretty good combination, providing a lot of capability without the need for a super carrier.


trailrunner

Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 23, 2017, 06:31:29 AM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 23, 2017, 06:27:20 AMHas the F22 replaced the F-15 then or is that still ongoing or stopped?

F22 production is wrapped.

IIRC, it was the F16 replacement, though, right?

I always learned it as:
F16 = primarily air-to-air fighter, can do other things, too, but designed to fight other aircraft
F15 = primarily a strike fighter, that can fight air-to-air well enough to defend itself, but not primarily to fight other aircraft


So the F22 = F16 replacement, and F35 = F15 replacement

The F-15 was originally designed as an air-to-air fighter.  That was the F-15C and was the primary air superiority fighter.  The F-15E (strike eagle) added the air-to-ground capability. 

The F-35 was definitely sold as an A-10 and F-16 replacement, the single-engine low part of the high-low mix.  That also helped justify the large buy of 3,000 aircraft, while we were only going to buy 179 F-22 (which got increased to 183 (I think) because of crashes).

The F-22 was not sold as a direct replacement for the F-15, but when it came to performance, the F-22 was compared to the F-15, but not the F-16.  Both the F-22 and the F-15 are two-engine fighters, with a primary role of air-to-air and with an added air-to-ground role.



bayonetbrant

Thanks for clarifying the comparisons between Fighters. Keep in mind I learned it all mainly from army guys, so there are bound to be some errors when they are talking about non-military services. ;D
The key to surviving this site is to not say something which ends up as someone's tag line - Steelgrave

"their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure." Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

mirth

I'm surprised you knew they were airplanes :P
"45 minutes of pooping Tribbles being juggled by a drunken Horta would be better than Season 1 of TNG." - SirAndrewD

"you don't look at the mantelpiece when you're poking the fire" - Bawb

"Can't 'un' until you 'pre', son." - Gus

bayonetbrant

Quote from: mirth on June 23, 2017, 07:28:43 AM
I'm surprised you knew they were airplanes :P

All our shit starts with "M"

Besides, it's been a long time since there's been much need to ID enemy aircraft combat.
The key to surviving this site is to not say something which ends up as someone's tag line - Steelgrave

"their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure." Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Airborne Rifles

Being an Army guy, I'm no missionary for the Air Force, but since our country (and our allies) have dumped so much money into this program, I really want it to be worth it. After all the bad press, it actually looks like the F-35 is going to deliver on its promises. I read recently that the price is on its way down to $85 million a copy on the A variant, which is comparable to other non-stealth 4th and 4.5 generation fighters, or a modern airliner. And apparently the maneuvers conducted by the F-35 at the Paris Air Show this week showed that a combat loaded F-35 can pull off maneuvers that 4 and 4.5 generation fighters can't do flying clean. The same article said that those maneuvers were conducted with software that won't as yet even let the F-35 take advantage of its full range of maneuverability. And there have already been more F-35s delivered than F-22s.   

GDS_Starfury

the Air Force is trying to stick with its hi/lo mix of planes to keep things relatively simple.  what they need is a hi/medium/low mix to be as flexible as they need to be.
with this idea the F-22/F-15 is the high, the F-35/F-16 is the medium and something like the A-10 is the low.
Toonces - Don't ask me, I just close my eyes and take it.

Gus - I use sweatpants with flannel shorts to soak up my crotch sweat.

Banzai Cat - There is no "partial credit" in grammar. Like anal sex. It's either in, or it's not.

Mirth - We learned long ago that they key isn't to outrun Star, it's to outrun Gus.

Martok - I don't know if it's possible to have an "anti-boner"...but I now have one.

Gus - Celery is vile and has no reason to exist. Like underwear on Star.


BanzaiCat

Those bastards are LOUD. One went up this morning on afterburner.  :o

OJsDad

'Here at NASA we all pee the same color.'  Al Harrison from the movie Hidden Figures.

mirth

"45 minutes of pooping Tribbles being juggled by a drunken Horta would be better than Season 1 of TNG." - SirAndrewD

"you don't look at the mantelpiece when you're poking the fire" - Bawb

"Can't 'un' until you 'pre', son." - Gus