By: Spitfire9
- 4th February 2016 at 16:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why would you have a heat build up problem with the bay doors open?! The ambient temp. is well below freezing.
What happens if you decided to open them anyway?
The testing demonstrated the F-35 is clear of flutter, at speeds up to 1.6 Mach and 700 knots with weapon bay doors open or closed, critical to performing its combat mission.
I don't understand the issue. Where did the M1.2 limit for opening weapons bay doors come from?
New
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23
- 4th February 2016 at 16:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are you not reading or intentionally misunderstanding the document?
...weapons bay doors being closed...
Yes, the aircraft is allowed to have the bay doors closed above 25'000 feet but the F35A can't open them at above mach 1.2. Tough shlt. But AFAIK nobody has questioned that part.
We are talking in circles here.
We have a heat issue, with the bays beings discussed, and a buffet issue. Both issues seem to be resolved or worked around. Either way your " cant go mach 1.2 with the bay open" statement has been debunked.
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 4th February 2016 at 16:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
FBW, I agree, 'discourse' is an essential ingredient in any forum but, my comment stands, too often the same group of individuals carry on with the same pointless, childish, back and forth arguing and petty point scoring, and it ruins the thread having to wade through all the nonsense in the vain hope of trying to find some genuinely useful information. I tend to stick to pprune these days, petty arguing goes on there too, but on nowhere near the scale that one finds here...
-Dazza
Discussion is what it is all about but the trolls make it difficult for that to happen.
Posters who make it a personal mission to attack or spread misinformation about an aircraft aren't really contributing.
By: TomcatViP
- 4th February 2016 at 20:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But there NO restrictions over 25k! For the bay. Also since when does altitude equal absolute air speed!? Like everything else with this plane, a work around is in order, until the problem can be solved. The pDF mentioned conditions in the bay that stress the life of the stores. It never mentions some catastrophic buffeting.
The problem is absent on the B. It seems then to me that this is linked to fuel temp and environmental issues (probably volume dependant like pumps). Hence, probably one problem with two effects.
Oddly enough the report does not focus on the gun rubbing issue or the tensioning in the refueling hose for example that should focus critics more than pointing to a variety of effects probably sourced on a common problem. Those are engineering issue that should not be found at the age of FEA/CFD accessible simulations.
However the apparent efforts of transparency (the report is clear, pedagogical and properly arranged (no repetitions and redundancies)) are noteworthy and commendable.
Also, isn't it the first time that we are given a precise picture of what are the fuel cap of each models?
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 4th February 2016 at 23:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Discussion is what it is all about but the trolls make it difficult for that to happen.
Posters who make it a personal mission to attack or spread misinformation about an aircraft aren't really contributing.
There is no time to spread misinformation when one has full hands with debunking the previous misinformation that was spread about this aircraft ever since.
When someone who finds the truth too hurtful sees that as attack, that is his problem..
By: Dazza
- 4th February 2016 at 23:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, you do call a spade ********** shovel though...
:angel:
-Dazza
New
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23
- 5th February 2016 at 00:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is no time to spread misinformation when one has full hands with debunking the previous misinformation that was spread about this aircraft ever since.
When someone who finds the truth too hurtful sees that as attack, that is his problem..
Msphere while there has been mismanagement you are probably looking at one of the most open and scrutinized development programs in history.
Do you think the Russians are going to go into details on why their 5th gen fighter caught on fire? Do you think the Chinese will build the J-20 with no design issues or mishaps? Some of the things you call misinformation are ommisions or reluctance by the government, and the program to have to deal with the Blogesphere.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 5th February 2016 at 00:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Msphere while there has been mismanagement you are probably looking at one of the most open and scrutinized development programs in history.
Do you think the Russians are going to go into details on why their 5th gen fighter caught on fire? Do you think the Chinese will build the J-20 with no design issues or mishaps? Some of the things you call misinformation are ommisions or reluctance by the government, and the program to have to deal with the Blogesphere.
I am not denying that.. there is a ton of publicly available information about the F-35..
For me, the mismanagement is not the main problem.. The difference between the promised/claimed and the delivered, that is a problem. From the "almost F-22 @ 60mil a piece to flying cow @ 120mil"... Nomatter how much testing needs to be done, software tweaks are hardly gonna change that..
I don't think that the Chinese J-20 has no problems.. But I don't see any J-20 worshippers going out and claiming "it's gonna eat Raptors for breakfast and cost $37million". At least on this forums, that is... Therefore I see little need in trying to debunk claims which no one is making, in the first place..
By: djcross
- 5th February 2016 at 02:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't have an axe to grind over O&TE. It may be a level of bureaucracy too far but if F-35 is failing tests it is determined it should pass, it is failing tests it should pass. I doubt very much that if the situation were different and the F-35 had passed the tests it failed the Lexington Institute would be belittling the value of tests. In any event the Lexington Institute's opinions/assessments/analyses have little or no value since the institute is reportedly funded inter alia by LM. Conflict of interest between voicing genuine opinion and voicing opinion that advances the cause of its paymasters.
This isn't a grade school pass/fail test activity.
The purpose of weapons system testing, by the real user, under the conditions he plans to use the weapon, is to identify and correct performance shortfalls. The current incarnation of OT&E isn't performed by the real user nor are OT&E tests performed under the types of conditions the real user will see. OT&E is simply an additional test-analyze-and-fix loop inserted into the process which gobbles up budget and lengthens schedule. Risk-adverse bureaucracy demands endless testing to cover their worthless butts.
The best way to identify and correct issues is to field and deploy the system early and let failures occur in realistic conditions. And program managers need to have the guts to set aside budget to implement fixes. And when the bureaucracy drags its feet implementing the fixes, as they always do, the PM should kick their butts and get the fixes moving.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 5th February 2016 at 03:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the infantry was pretty upset when they were sent to the jungle to evaluate if M-16 work or not
By: djcross
- 5th February 2016 at 04:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the infantry was pretty upset when they were sent to the jungle to evaluate if M-16 work or not
And many died because the .gov bureaucrats who ran the ammunition plants refused to believe field reports that their crappy overpressure ammunition was causing jams. A simple change to a faster burning powder eventually fixed the problem. But the .gov bureaucracy never admits fault when fingers can be pointed.
New
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23
- 5th February 2016 at 06:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the infantry was pretty upset when they were sent to the jungle to evaluate if M-16 work or not
If the F-35 didn't work at all, and there was some mass conspiracy, wouldn't it be easier just to look over and send it to customer?
Why spend company money and take loses fixing planes that your going to pass off.
If you are trying to make money, by scamming people, you dont lose money. @ Msphere lets look a something
1. The FRP price for the F-35 is around 80 million. Thats only 20 mill over your quote. What year was your quote? Whats the exchange rate with your country? Are you going to cancel the entire program over what amounts to a 30+% increase?
2. Price increases are par for course I recall that the T-50 was supposed to be under 100 mill and with a AESA in nearly every wing with insane range.
The Russians have only admitted after heavy scrutiny From Indian that planes are hard.
3. No matter what you think about the F-35 most allied air forces are switching to it despite teething issues. This is in the face of competition from European, and other American offerings.
What is it that Israel, Japan, Britan get that your missing?
I respect you Msphere. Im just trying to challenge your thinking.
By: Robbiesmurf
- 5th February 2016 at 07:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And many died because the .gov bureaucrats who ran the ammunition plants refused to believe field reports that their crappy overpressure ammunition was causing jams. A simple change to a faster burning powder eventually fixed the problem. But the .gov bureaucracy never admits fault when fingers can be pointed.
It was a combination of factors. Not only was the propellent in the ammo dirty but the troops didn't clean their weapons. They had been trained that the M16 was so good it never needed cleaning so they just gunged up and jammed. Switching propellent and rigorous cleaning was the fix.
By: Ezco
- 5th February 2016 at 12:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the F-35 didn't work at all, and there was some mass conspiracy, wouldn't it be easier just to look over and send it to customer?
Why spend company money and take loses fixing planes that your going to pass off.
If you are trying to make money, by scamming people, you dont lose money. @ Msphere lets look a something
1. The FRP price for the F-35 is around 80 million. Thats only 20 mill over your quote. What year was your quote? Whats the exchange rate with your country? Are you going to cancel the entire program over what amounts to a 30+% increase?
2. Price increases are par for course I recall that the T-50 was supposed to be under 100 mill and with a AESA in nearly every wing with insane range.
The Russians have only admitted after heavy scrutiny From Indian that planes are hard.
3. No matter what you think about the F-35 most allied air forces are switching to it despite teething issues. This is in the face of competition from European, and other American offerings.
What is it that Israel, Japan, Britan get that your missing?
I respect you Msphere. Im just trying to challenge your thinking.
I imagine you purchasing a brand new tesla car for 80 000, then the car seller explains you have to test it.... the first day you start the electric engine and you have a blue screen: Error: ALIS can not load maintenance data, not possible to use your car today.... :-))
By: MSphere
- 5th February 2016 at 13:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@ Msphere lets look a something
1. The FRP price for the F-35 is around 80 million. Thats only 20 mill over your quote. What year was your quote? Whats the exchange rate with your country? Are you going to cancel the entire program over what amounts to a 30+% increase?
2. Price increases are par for course I recall that the T-50 was supposed to be under 100 mill and with a AESA in nearly every wing with insane range.
The Russians have only admitted after heavy scrutiny From Indian that planes are hard.
3. No matter what you think about the F-35 most allied air forces are switching to it despite teething issues. This is in the face of competition from European, and other American offerings.
What is it that Israel, Japan, Britan get that your missing?
I respect you Msphere. Im just trying to challenge your thinking.
1. You're obviously not going to cancel the program, such option has never been in the books ever since.. The concurrency thing takes care of the matter that nomatter how the tests look like, you're gonna have to keep buying the bird anyway.
2. Certainly possible. I would not even dare to assess the true PAK-FA cost at this stage of the project.
3. It's simple.. lack of options.. And especially those three customers you have mentioned ain't the most stellar examples.. Israel is getting the birds free of charge under FMS.. Britain is buying the F-35B STOVL only.. they would most likely have to switch to it even if it was much worse than it is.. and Japanese are pushing their own ATD-X for the A-A role.. of course it's also about domestic capabilities.. but let me guess, if they were given the F-22s few years ago, they would not break their legs to have their own design.. the fact that they do now speaks volumes about what they really think about the F-35, especially in the A-A role..
No prob, you can challenge any claim I have made, finally it's nothing but my subjective opinion..
For an export customer, the $80mil quote is a non-starter. Nomatter which side you take the calculations from, 32 birds ready to be operated will cost you over 8 billion. Whether you will move the cost from airframe to maintenance or training or a billion dollar facility which you must have, it's still gonna be 8 billion acquisition cost alone. That is what matters...
By: FBW
- 5th February 2016 at 15:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
3Britain is buying the F-35B STOVL only.. they would most likely have to switch to it even if it was much worse than it is.. and Japanese are pushing their own ATD-X for the A-A role.. of course it's also about domestic capabilities.. but let me guess, if they were given the F-22s few years ago, they would not break their legs to have their own design.. the fact that they do now speaks volumes about what they really think about the F-35, especially in the A-A role..
No...
Bad examples, Britain had choices, they evaluated those choices and stuck with 138 F-35B. Japan goes by the beat of their own drummer, the ATD-X is not likely to lead to anything for a long time, the F-35's are replacing F-4. It has nothing to do with perceived weakness of the F-35 in A-A. Did it make sense for Japan to develop a 110 million dollar F-16 variant with inferior performance? Japan wants to protect it's aerospace industry, period.
By: Tu22m
- 5th February 2016 at 16:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We are talking in circles here.
We have a heat issue, with the bays beings discussed, and a buffet issue. Both issues seem to be resolved or worked around. Either way your " cant go mach 1.2 with the bay open" statement has been debunked.
It has not been debunked.
They sort of clearly state that it can't do it with the F35A in the state it was during 2015.
Having flight tests with other software blocks years before doesnt not change anything.
... and calling it debunking. I am not spreading myths, i am quoting the "Director, Operational Test & Evaluation Office". There is nothing to be debunked as that would mean you have proven that the F35A could fly with the bay doors open in 2015.
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 4th February 2016 at 16:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is an aircraft that isn't even operational yet with operating costs that dropped almost 40% over the last year alone...
Posts: 2,626
By: Spitfire9 - 4th February 2016 at 16:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't understand the issue. Where did the M1.2 limit for opening weapons bay doors come from?
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23 - 4th February 2016 at 16:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We are talking in circles here.
We have a heat issue, with the bays beings discussed, and a buffet issue. Both issues seem to be resolved or worked around. Either way your " cant go mach 1.2 with the bay open" statement has been debunked.
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 4th February 2016 at 16:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Discussion is what it is all about but the trolls make it difficult for that to happen.
Posters who make it a personal mission to attack or spread misinformation about an aircraft aren't really contributing.
Posts: 584
By: Robbiesmurf - 4th February 2016 at 20:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, you do call a spade ********** shovel though...
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 4th February 2016 at 20:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem is absent on the B. It seems then to me that this is linked to fuel temp and environmental issues (probably volume dependant like pumps). Hence, probably one problem with two effects.
Oddly enough the report does not focus on the gun rubbing issue or the tensioning in the refueling hose for example that should focus critics more than pointing to a variety of effects probably sourced on a common problem. Those are engineering issue that should not be found at the age of FEA/CFD accessible simulations.
However the apparent efforts of transparency (the report is clear, pedagogical and properly arranged (no repetitions and redundancies)) are noteworthy and commendable.
Also, isn't it the first time that we are given a precise picture of what are the fuel cap of each models?
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 4th February 2016 at 23:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is no time to spread misinformation when one has full hands with debunking the previous misinformation that was spread about this aircraft ever since.
When someone who finds the truth too hurtful sees that as attack, that is his problem..
Posts: 1,407
By: Dazza - 4th February 2016 at 23:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:angel:
-Dazza
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23 - 5th February 2016 at 00:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Msphere while there has been mismanagement you are probably looking at one of the most open and scrutinized development programs in history.
Do you think the Russians are going to go into details on why their 5th gen fighter caught on fire? Do you think the Chinese will build the J-20 with no design issues or mishaps? Some of the things you call misinformation are ommisions or reluctance by the government, and the program to have to deal with the Blogesphere.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 5th February 2016 at 00:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am not denying that.. there is a ton of publicly available information about the F-35..
For me, the mismanagement is not the main problem.. The difference between the promised/claimed and the delivered, that is a problem. From the "almost F-22 @ 60mil a piece to flying cow @ 120mil"... Nomatter how much testing needs to be done, software tweaks are hardly gonna change that..
I don't think that the Chinese J-20 has no problems.. But I don't see any J-20 worshippers going out and claiming "it's gonna eat Raptors for breakfast and cost $37million". At least on this forums, that is... Therefore I see little need in trying to debunk claims which no one is making, in the first place..
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 5th February 2016 at 02:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This isn't a grade school pass/fail test activity.
The purpose of weapons system testing, by the real user, under the conditions he plans to use the weapon, is to identify and correct performance shortfalls. The current incarnation of OT&E isn't performed by the real user nor are OT&E tests performed under the types of conditions the real user will see. OT&E is simply an additional test-analyze-and-fix loop inserted into the process which gobbles up budget and lengthens schedule. Risk-adverse bureaucracy demands endless testing to cover their worthless butts.
The best way to identify and correct issues is to field and deploy the system early and let failures occur in realistic conditions. And program managers need to have the guts to set aside budget to implement fixes. And when the bureaucracy drags its feet implementing the fixes, as they always do, the PM should kick their butts and get the fixes moving.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 5th February 2016 at 03:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the infantry was pretty upset when they were sent to the jungle to evaluate if M-16 work or not
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 5th February 2016 at 04:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And many died because the .gov bureaucrats who ran the ammunition plants refused to believe field reports that their crappy overpressure ammunition was causing jams. A simple change to a faster burning powder eventually fixed the problem. But the .gov bureaucracy never admits fault when fingers can be pointed.
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23 - 5th February 2016 at 06:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the F-35 didn't work at all, and there was some mass conspiracy, wouldn't it be easier just to look over and send it to customer?
Why spend company money and take loses fixing planes that your going to pass off.
If you are trying to make money, by scamming people, you dont lose money. @ Msphere lets look a something
1. The FRP price for the F-35 is around 80 million. Thats only 20 mill over your quote. What year was your quote? Whats the exchange rate with your country? Are you going to cancel the entire program over what amounts to a 30+% increase?
2. Price increases are par for course I recall that the T-50 was supposed to be under 100 mill and with a AESA in nearly every wing with insane range.
The Russians have only admitted after heavy scrutiny From Indian that planes are hard.
3. No matter what you think about the F-35 most allied air forces are switching to it despite teething issues. This is in the face of competition from European, and other American offerings.
What is it that Israel, Japan, Britan get that your missing?
I respect you Msphere. Im just trying to challenge your thinking.
Posts: 584
By: Robbiesmurf - 5th February 2016 at 07:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It was a combination of factors. Not only was the propellent in the ammo dirty but the troops didn't clean their weapons. They had been trained that the M16 was so good it never needed cleaning so they just gunged up and jammed. Switching propellent and rigorous cleaning was the fix.
Posts: 174
By: Ezco - 5th February 2016 at 12:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I imagine you purchasing a brand new tesla car for 80 000, then the car seller explains you have to test it.... the first day you start the electric engine and you have a blue screen: Error: ALIS can not load maintenance data, not possible to use your car today.... :-))
Posts: 2,626
By: Spitfire9 - 5th February 2016 at 13:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
U.S. Air Force Says Plans Test F-35 Deployment This Month
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/170972/us-air-force-to-test-f_35-deployment-this-month.html
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 5th February 2016 at 13:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1. You're obviously not going to cancel the program, such option has never been in the books ever since.. The concurrency thing takes care of the matter that nomatter how the tests look like, you're gonna have to keep buying the bird anyway.
2. Certainly possible. I would not even dare to assess the true PAK-FA cost at this stage of the project.
3. It's simple.. lack of options.. And especially those three customers you have mentioned ain't the most stellar examples.. Israel is getting the birds free of charge under FMS.. Britain is buying the F-35B STOVL only.. they would most likely have to switch to it even if it was much worse than it is.. and Japanese are pushing their own ATD-X for the A-A role.. of course it's also about domestic capabilities.. but let me guess, if they were given the F-22s few years ago, they would not break their legs to have their own design.. the fact that they do now speaks volumes about what they really think about the F-35, especially in the A-A role..
No prob, you can challenge any claim I have made, finally it's nothing but my subjective opinion..
For an export customer, the $80mil quote is a non-starter. Nomatter which side you take the calculations from, 32 birds ready to be operated will cost you over 8 billion. Whether you will move the cost from airframe to maintenance or training or a billion dollar facility which you must have, it's still gonna be 8 billion acquisition cost alone. That is what matters...
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 5th February 2016 at 15:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bad examples, Britain had choices, they evaluated those choices and stuck with 138 F-35B. Japan goes by the beat of their own drummer, the ATD-X is not likely to lead to anything for a long time, the F-35's are replacing F-4. It has nothing to do with perceived weakness of the F-35 in A-A. Did it make sense for Japan to develop a 110 million dollar F-16 variant with inferior performance? Japan wants to protect it's aerospace industry, period.
Posts: 1,149
By: Tu22m - 5th February 2016 at 16:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It has not been debunked.
They sort of clearly state that it can't do it with the F35A in the state it was during 2015.
Having flight tests with other software blocks years before doesnt not change anything.
... and calling it debunking. I am not spreading myths, i am quoting the "Director, Operational Test & Evaluation Office". There is nothing to be debunked as that would mean you have proven that the F35A could fly with the bay doors open in 2015.