Major F-35 Component Cracks

[Ammyy]

I like it if this jet program is delayed because it will give China, Russia and others to catch up to US aviation tech. Good news indeed.

No they cant

USA already have this one
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And they are working on this one 6th gen fighter

 

[amalakas]

No they cant

USA already have this one
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And they are working on this one 6th gen fighter

No arguments about the raptor, but this is not a true 6 generation fighter, it is simply a 5th generation potential dual drone/fighter for the navy.

The plans for a 6th generation are very different.

 

[LeGenD]

Boeing and Airbus they both have a monopoly on world aviation

Because these companies have a history of delivering quality products and meeting demands of customers.

And this is true since 1920's on wards these companies were involved in ww2 so they also get backing by governments like US/UK etc on all contracts and special treatments

Primary reasons are good reputation, high experience, and R&D programs.

They are not even the best companies in world but becasue they eat up Billions and billions even the inefficient workers of these companies eventually make a flying bird

And which are better ones?

Those billions are mostly spent on R&D related projects for developing new products. Research always has been a costly venture. Cost does not matters in case of research.

Even in ww2 their planes were not best in market
their planes were known to have engine problems and horrible kill rate but luckily for them they had radars and that changed the game - otherwise

Germans had better tanks
Japan/Germans had better flying planes

During WW2, emphasis was put on quantity rather than on quality. Objective was to keep the military forces supplied at all times.

Some high quality products were also produced by the Allied front. They are not much touted about or often get overlooked.

While Germans and Japanese did had quality on their side; They faced shortage of arms in the end and lost the war.

American inginuity died after 70's with Kennedy what have US done in technology its been all work of immigrants from China , India , Pakistan or others who have been doing all the work even stealth is based off Russian scientist innovations

Do you have up-to-date statistics of immigrants working in Boeing, NASA, and Airbus?

What I find funny is that these 'talented immigrants' are doing little for their places of birth. Why is this? Do they lack the will?

US is a crumbling empire under huge debts and their only way out is if they start a WW3 with other nations who own their debts

Americans have dealt with recession before and they will deal with it again. It is their headache anyways. Recovery process takes lot of time. And last time I checked, FED is taking care of US government debts.

We need to focus upon our economy, which is nearing collapse.

Americans are not going to work their way out of debt they will simply start a fake war and then wipe clean all their debt by stealing other resources -

Brother, start reading some financial material than.

Thats why US/UK others are ordering the F35 Quickly they know in a fair combat their forces will get beat pretty easily

You need some serious history related tutoring.

Weapons like F-35 are being built to guarantee 'superiority' in case of hostilities. Wars are never fair.

I mean come on a few sheap hearders in Afghanistan they could not tame them in 10 years -

Sheep herders?

"The notion of a 'graveyard of empires' is actually a false extrapolation from something that is true -- that there is tactical and strategic difficulty," Porter says.

"It is possible in wars against guerrillas to flood cities with troops. It is much harder to flood mountains. And Afghanistan is a country not of very powerful cities but of thousands of isolated villages cut off in severe winters, allowing guerrillas and insurgents to melt away and return."

Source: Is Afghanistan really a 'graveyard of empires?' - CNN.com

The above quote indicates the challenges of conflict in Afghanistan.

The funny thing is they USE DIRTY tactics to ban airlines that don't put orders with these CORPORATIONS ... like they did with PIA banned their whole flights ...

Brother, corporations are never fair-minded. They only care about profitability.

What about the NEW boeing and airbus planes that are crashing due to bad engines did anyone BAN them ??? no simple ITS MONOPOLY to force other nations to buy their planes
Each plane is like Billions and billions for their economies so they blackmail other countries to buy planes from these companies ...

Boeing and Airbus are not forcibly shoving their products down the throats of their customers. It is the lack of sufficient competition which is the problem.

If we had 100-200 billion budget on building aviation plan yes we would build a space vehicle with our innovation

We are always good at making tall claims. However, we (as a Pakistani nation) have yet to make any major progress since independence. Problem is not lack of talent in our case. It is corruption and extremism.

How we will get those billions of dollars? Through aid or through developing some industry? No wait, we have China to take care of our industrial demands.

 

[IceCold]

I wonder why Gambit hasnt replied in this thread, since his technical knowledge out classes many here, i wonder what he has to say on the subject matter.

 

[gambit]

I wonder why Gambit hasnt replied in this thread, since his technical knowledge out classes many here, i wonder what he has to say on the subject matter.

Too little information. We have no details on precisely where these cracks are located. Could it be from inferior grade materials? This would not fall under design flaw but under manufacturing defects.

 

[IceCold]

Too little information. We have no details on precisely where these cracks are located. Could it be from inferior grade materials? This would not fall under design flaw but under manufacturing defects.

So perhaps we should wait for more information to surface before jumping on to a conclusion.

On a side note Gambit dont you feel the production of F-22 was ended a bit too soon.I mean the F-35 does not even come close to the F-22, what was the Obama administration thinking when they decided to decrease the number of the F-22.

 

[LeGenD]

F22 production has been halted due to 3 main reasons:

1. Cuts in defence budget.
2. No Cold War (F22 plan was influenced by Cold War related doctrine)
3. F35 is cheaper to build and has lower maintenance requirements. It is to be produced in large quantities.

Also, something better and economically more viable than F22 is probably under consideration behind the walls.

 

[gambit]

So perhaps we should wait for more information to surface before jumping on to a conclusion.

Yes...The article said...

Major F35B Component Cracks

A knowledgeable source confirmed to defense-aerospace.com that the frame in question is the STA 496 bulkhead, and added that “by all accounts, so far, the undercarriage loads are in the mix, which brings into focus a debate that was had some time ago about whether or not the full spectrum of the [Conventional Take-Off and Landing] loads should be used as well as those for the STOVL scenarios ([Vertical Landing] and, possibly, Ski-Jump)” for the fatigue test program.

Here are the variants' bulkheads...

The highlighted 496 bulkhead is in the STOVL column and it does not exist in the other variants. Since it may involve the main landing gear, we can narrow its location on the fuselage. For now, the questions would involve:

- Are there stresses in the STOVL variant that in all likelihood does not exist in the CV and CTOL variants?

- Can the bulkhead in question be strengthened without an adverse increase in weight?

- Will the modified bulkhead transfer mechanical stresses to other bulkheads where there would be a replication of the same problem?

The greater headache would be that 496 can be strengthened but would require the same for the other bulkheads, thereby driving up the STOVL variant cost but not the others. But for now, there is too little information for the interested public to go by.

On a side note Gambit dont you feel the production of F-22 was ended a bit too soon.

Yes...Am not interested in compromises in national defense. As far as I am concerned, if we can have a generational advantage over current and potential adversaries, we should allocate funds for that advantage. The argument that the F-22 is a 'Cold War' relic misses the issue that current 'Cold War' relics field by other countries who are either current or potential adversaries can still do serious damages to our forces. We may win but I want to win by lopsided margins.

I mean the F-35 does not even come close to the F-22, what was the Obama administration thinking when they decided to decrease the number of the F-22.

Both aircrafts may have similar characteristics, namely their very low radar observability, but each have different missions. The different versions for the F-35 are to accommodate the different needs by the services while keeping intact the most important characteristic -- low radar observability -- for all the services. The F-22 is to achieve air supremacy to decrease the air threat for the F-35 and other aircrafts. After all, even an 'air force' guy like myself has to admit that air power should be subordinate to and supportive of ground objectives. That is why I do not like any comparison between the two.

The decision to cut funding for new F-22 may be financially necessary given our current economic and budgetary problems, but the world is no less safer today than when the Cold War and proxy regional armed conflicts were going on. If the desire is to fight our adversaries 'over there' instead of 'over here', then we need to have that air supremacy capability transportable anywhere in the world. The decision to cut the F-22 is a shortsighted one.

 

[amalakas]

Yes...The article said...

Major F35B Component Cracks

Here are the variants' bulkheads...

The highlighted 496 bulkhead is in the STOVL column and it does not exist in the other variants. Since it may involve the main landing gear, we can narrow its location on the fuselage. For now, the questions would involve:

- Are there stresses in the STOVL variant that in all likelihood does not exist in the CV and CTOL variants?

- Can the bulkhead in question be strengthened without an adverse increase in weight?

- Will the modified bulkhead transfer mechanical stresses to other bulkheads where there would be a replication of the same problem?

The greater headache would be that 496 can be strengthened but would require the same for the other bulkheads, thereby driving up the STOVL variant cost but not the others. But for now, there is too little information for the interested public to go by.


Yes...Am not interested in compromises in national defense. As far as I am concerned, if we can have a generational advantage over current and potential adversaries, we should allocate funds for that advantage. The argument that the F-22 is a 'Cold War' relic misses the issue that current 'Cold War' relics field by other countries who are either current or potential adversaries can still do serious damages to our forces. We may win but I want to win by lopsided margins.


Both aircrafts may have similar characteristics, namely their very low radar observability, but each have different missions. The different versions for the F-35 are to accommodate the different needs by the services while keeping intact the most important characteristic -- low radar observability -- for all the services. The F-22 is to achieve air supremacy to decrease the air threat for the F-35 and other aircrafts. After all, even an 'air force' guy like myself has to admit that air power should be subordinate to and supportive of ground objectives. That is why I do not like any comparison between the two.

The decision to cut funding for new F-22 may be financially necessary given our current economic and budgetary problems, but the world is no less safer today than when the Cold War and proxy regional armed conflicts were going on. If the desire is to fight our adversaries 'over there' instead of 'over here', then we need to have that air supremacy capability transportable anywhere in the world. The decision to cut the F-22 is a shortsighted one.

I don't think the bulkhead cracks is a design flaw, I think it is an ongoing issue with the F35, manufacturing problems, LM had to create an entire new generation of manufacturing techniques to produce the F35 variants.
I am confident as soon as the proper inspections are conducted the process errors will be eliminated and the bulkheads will be right as rain.

I too agree about the F22. It is a great plane all around, and producing more and in more determined fashion would drive their cost down.
I am indeed not sure =still - why the F35 was ever an option -

I do not see the "fight over there vs fight over here- argument though..
if I am not mistaken the F22 hasn't been deployed anywhere outside the US ...

 

[CardSharp]

^^^^^

You two are missing part of the reason why the F-35 was started was to arm NATO allies and to share out the costs (economy of scale I guess), potentially making the upgrade of the USAF's aging fleet cheaper as a bonus.

After all it is the Joint strike fighter.

 

[amalakas]

^^^^^

You two are missing part of the reason why the F-35 was started was to arm NATO allies and to share out the costs (economy of scale I guess), potentially making the upgrade of the USAF's aging fleet cheaper as a bonus.

After all it is the Joint strike fighter.

After all we could all have simpler ( called export) versions of the F22,

I don't think the geniuses over at MIT wouldn't figure out a way to make an export version of the F22.. .. but that's government for you, why have one when you can have two at 3 times the price... keep all the lobbyists happy ..

no, the F22 is expensive, but its the first of its generation and the cost is understandable as well as some compromises, but what the hell is the F35 ?? its funny little sidekick, robin to the batman ???

i don't know, all NATO members will eventually buy some F35s the USA embassies are already twisting arms left and right...

time will tell if it was indeed a worthy plane to fill the shoes of the F16.

let's just hope that if it isn't all them supporters will have the guts and the memory to come out and admit they were wrong ...

 

[nightcrawler]

@Gambit

Well i do strongly believe in the F-22 & Cold War relic. The enemy you are facing right now is 100% inferior the enemy you were facing at the cold war.
Just look at the talibans one can easily take them with F-14/16 & your conventional legacy fighters & regarding margin ...well I haven't seen taliban shooting down any of your plane with their RPGs/AAA guns; only nasty stuff they have got right now