testtest

F-35: Controversial, Capable, or Both?

The F-35s' design was driven by the USMC VSTOL requirement that forced the fuselage to be designed to accommodate the large-diameter lift fan behind the cockpit which influenced the aerodynamics and the size of the weapons bay, and is essentially "dead" weight since it's only used for vertical landings. But, the F-35B mostly uses short-rolling take-offs in order to carry more payload (ordnance & fuel) because of the extra lift provided by a horizontal take-off.


Therefore the F-35A & C are stuck with the aerodynamic deficiencies but use the space for a larger weapons bay and extra fuel.

And now for the rest of the Story....





And a series of issues that while some have been corrected, significant others will just have to be lived with...



P&W has always been supported by the USAF even-though their engines, going back to the F100 in the F-15 & F-16, have had major issues, have under-performed the GE engines. The F-15s & F16s with GE engines have always had better performance & reliability with the USAF splitting the F-16 buys between the two engines. But the F-15C, D & E's were stuck with P&W engines until overseas buyers of the F-15 paid for the F110 to be approved for use in the F-15 then preferred the F110 for their buys. That ended with the recent F-15EX buy then P&W whined that they were cut out of providing engines but didn't want to pay for tests for their F100 engine to be speced out for the F-15EX.

The same applies to the F-35 engine/thermal mgt issues in order to run Block 4 capabilities.





The recent decision to go with the P&W upgrade of the existing F-35 is just a band-aid and continued subsidy of P&W, but with second thoughts.








With the F-135 Engine Core Upgrade barely meeting Block 4 needs with no extra margin, the F-135 ECU will still result in the engine running extra hard with subsequent rebuild/maintenance & performance issues.


So pay me now or pay me latter.

All this is like if the P-51s' original Allison engine was never replaced by the superior Merlin engine.


But GE is still pushing it's engine as the best option with growth margin.






And contrary to the OP article, considering the Chicoms hacked into the F-35 database years ago, and know it's strengths & weaknesses I don't think they're intimidated by the F-35 considering their own fighter developments.
 
91103731_1575711192566742_1675247913585868800_n.png
 
Hi,

@Talyn, all those articles were very interesting and informative. (I'm going to bookmark defensenews.com and a couple others. Great stuff.) The F-35 certainly is a compromise and it's still having its systems, controls, surfaces, and quirks ironed out. Despite its issues, it seems to be the baddest plane in the air right now. I just wish a higher percentage were combat-ready. If the military expects this plane to be in service for 50 years or longer, they'd better get the repair, maintenance, and upgrade facilities going full speed.

Maybe I'll just take one for now. ;)


Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff
 
The F-35 is basically an attack plane vs. a true air-superiority fighter like the F-22.

Suppressing the F-22 production (and the F-14D+) & transferring funds to keep the F-35 program alive degraded the air-superiority portion of the mix putting the US (both USAF & USN) in the hole it is now regarding Chicom developments.

The USAF NGAD & USN F/A-XX program will address that deficiency but having them in operational numbers is a long way off.
 
More of the rest of the story....


 
Pilot training on the F35 is done near me at Eglin AFB. It is a NOISY aircraft, but I love hearing them. I understand it is very responsive to pilot input and a kick in the ass to fly. I was surprised to learn there are newby pilots starting off on the aircraft as well as veteran pilots transitioning into them from other aircraft.

Just about every new aircraft has developmental issues, the more complex the aircraft the more issues they will have, both machine and training. I hear a lot of noise about F35 problems but remember, much of its capability and systems are highly classified. The F16 seemed to be the most trouble-free new aircraft in my memory but it was inspired by John Boyd, one of the best fighter pilots in history. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
 
And even more of the rest of the story....


Note from the article: However, it seems that past woes with concurrency — the combined development and production process in which F-35s are manufactured before all features have been completely tested or vetted — are driving this approach.
 
Other than some really good sensors/intel gathering capability, and ability to penetrate contested airspace deeper (not as good as the F-22) the F-35 is a bit of a dog in the air with speed limitations (considering its' 43,000 lbst. engine that has issues itself)) to just barely supersonic to avoid structural damage to the tail area and the stealth coating.

It's really just a "extremely-expensive" faster attack jet than the Harrier for the USMC, and nowhere near being an air-superiority fighter like the F-22.

The program sucked away funding from other programs to keep it afloat due to ongoing problems, since it was called "To Big to Fail".

The design trade-offs in order to give the USMC a new V/STOL attack has really hampered performance for the "A" and "C" versions to accommodate the USMC "B" versions lift-fan need in the overall design which locked-in aerodynamic issues, and is dead-weight in the "B" 99% of the time, since its only used for a few minutes when landing vertically on ships.

Plus, it needs a lot of specialized infrastructure to support it due to it's computerized systems.

It's really a misnomer to name it the "Lightning" because of the issues, and determent to the original WW2 P-38 Lightning.

But LM has a cash-cow for the foreseeable future for production & support.

My .02
 
Last edited:
Other than some really good sensors/intel gathering capability, and ability to penetrate contested airspace deeper (not as good as the F-22) the F-35 is a bit of a dog in the air with speed limitations (considering its' 43,000 lbst. engine that has issues itself)) to just barely supersonic to avoid structural damage to the tail area and the stealth coating.

It's really just a "extremely-expensive" faster attack jet than the Harrier for the USMC, and nowhere near being an air-superiority fighter like the F-22.

The program sucked away funding from other programs to keep it afloat due to ongoing problems, since it was called "To Big to Fail".

The design trade-offs in order to give the USMC a new V/STOL attack has really hampered performance for the "A" and "C" versions to accommodate the USMC "B" versions lift-fan need in the overall design which locked-in aerodynamic issues, and is dead-weight in the "B" 99% of the time, since its only used for a few minutes when landing vertically on ships.

Plus, it needs a lot of specialized infrastructure to support it due to it's computerized systems.

It's really a misnomer to name it the "Lightning" because of the issues, and determent to the original WW2 P-38 Lightning.

But LM has a cash-cow for the foreseeable future for production & support.

My .02
I am curious what your relationship with the F-35 is, you seem to have a lot of info and opinion, sorry to ask, I am new here.
 
Life-long interest & knowledge-base on aviation & other military-tech, and the effective use of the tax-payers $$.

There's ben ALOT of bad decisions/mistakes made in the last 30 years when it comes to several programs.

Some govt officials are finally admitting short-comings.






But still making mistakes, especially when it comes to the F-35s engine situation since they did it again.
 
Last edited:
Other than some really good sensors/intel gathering capability, and ability to penetrate contested airspace deeper (not as good as the F-22) the F-35 is a bit of a dog in the air with speed limitations (considering its' 43,000 lbst. engine that has issues itself)) to just barely supersonic to avoid structural damage to the tail area and the stealth coating.

It's really just a "extremely-expensive" faster attack jet than the Harrier for the USMC, and nowhere near being an air-superiority fighter like the F-22.

The program sucked away funding from other programs to keep it afloat due to ongoing problems, since it was called "To Big to Fail".

The design trade-offs in order to give the USMC a new V/STOL attack has really hampered performance for the "A" and "C" versions to accommodate the USMC "B" versions lift-fan need in the overall design which locked-in aerodynamic issues, and is dead-weight in the "B" 99% of the time, since its only used for a few minutes when landing vertically on ships.

Plus, it needs a lot of specialized infrastructure to support it due to it's computerized systems.

It's really a misnomer to name it the "Lightning" because of the issues, and determent to the original WW2 P-38 Lightning.

But LM has a cash-cow for the foreseeable future for production & support.

My .02
Have you flown one ?
Are you a pilot ?
Former Military pilot ?
Do you work in the aviation industry ?
Ever worked on avionics? Flight infrastructure ? Airframes ?
 
Back
Top