Us F-35 Lightning II Grounded Again..!

[amalakas]

No it had not. On contrary. Comanche lacked radar unlike the Longbow.

the requirements did not call for a radar. the RAH-66 was to be a reconnaissance helicopter, detect and designate targets to the apaches and other attack platforms.. it was a scout and extremely sophisticated ..

i am still waiting to be informed as to why I am confused...

 

[500]

the requirements did not call for a radar. the RAH-66 was to be a reconnaissance helicopter, detect and designate targets to the apaches and other attack platforms.. it was a scout and extremely sophisticated ..

i am still waiting to be informed as to why I am confused...

Radar helps to detect targets a lot. It also gratelly increased the survivability of Apachee (together with radar guised missiles). Thats why Commanche became useless.

 

[gambit]

and how exactly am I confused? please enlighten me oh great biassed one !

Perhaps saying 'anything' is too much, so I will just say anything about the F-35 in particular. I believe the US military aviation is taking the correct approach with the F-22 and F-35 combination. This is independent of any political will regarding budgeting for these aircrafts but of military needs in the face of constant evolution in military affairs and advances in technology. I have always say that there is nothing wrong with being a 'jack-of-all-trades' as long as the standards are not static. I see nothing wrong with having a dedicated air-air platform like the F-22 to clear the sky of opposition air to allow the more versatile F-35 to do its main job: support ground objectives.

The cost of maintaining a diverse field of hardware to accomplish that job is all too obvious. While the US can support our military, the misinformed criticisms about our defense budget notwithstanding, we can certainly trim our defense budget, as far as military aviation goes, and still be able to accomplish war goals. Why do you think the versatile F-16 and its European equivalents are so popular among smaller countries that do not have global interests and responsibilities but still need a capable all-around air defense fighter? The US Navy made that decision with the F-18E/F Super Hornet. It is not the best aircraft for anything but it is the more capable platform for anything than its competitors. The US Navy needed to simplify its logistics while deployed and the elimination of several platforms from an aircraft carrier certainly achieved that goal. But the US Navy could not have done it unless there is a reasonably capable 'jack-of-all-trades' available.

We screwed up with the F-111 when we tried to design a 'camel' for all the services. But we managed to find a niche mission for the aircraft based upon a unique capability that it gave the Soviets many restless nights when they knew at least a pair of Victor Alert F-111s are always on the ready. Despite the F-111's failure to satisfied many desires, we also succeeded with the F-4. It served excellently with all the services and under diverse environments. If any military aviation country that can build a 'jack-of-all-trades' that is superior to its competition and perhaps even superior to other dedicated platforms, it is US. It ain't the Russians, not the Europeans, and certainly not the Chinese.

That is why I laugh at the F-35's many critics, Americans or anyone else.

 

[amalakas]

Perhaps saying 'anything' is too much, so I will just say anything about the F-35 in particular. I believe the US military aviation is taking the correct approach with the F-22 and F-35 combination. This is independent of any political will regarding budgeting for these aircrafts but of military needs in the face of constant evolution in military affairs and advances in technology. I have always say that there is nothing wrong with being a 'jack-of-all-trades' as long as the standards are not static. I see nothing wrong with having a dedicated air-air platform like the F-22 to clear the sky of opposition air to allow the more versatile F-35 to do its main job: support ground objectives.

The cost of maintaining a diverse field of hardware to accomplish that job is all too obvious. While the US can support our military, the misinformed criticisms about our defense budget notwithstanding, we can certainly trim our defense budget, as far as military aviation goes, and still be able to accomplish war goals. Why do you think the versatile F-16 and its European equivalents are so popular among smaller countries that do not have global interests and responsibilities but still need a capable all-around air defense fighter? The US Navy made that decision with the F-18E/F Super Hornet. It is not the best aircraft for anything but it is the more capable platform for anything than its competitors. The US Navy needed to simplify its logistics while deployed and the elimination of several platforms from an aircraft carrier certainly achieved that goal. But the US Navy could not have done it unless there is a reasonably capable 'jack-of-all-trades' available.

We screwed up with the F-111 when we tried to design a 'camel' for all the services. But we managed to find a niche mission for the aircraft based upon a unique capability that it gave the Soviets many restless nights when they knew at least a pair of Victor Alert F-111s are always on the ready. Despite the F-111's failure to satisfied many desires, we also succeeded with the F-4. It served excellently with all the services and under diverse environments. If any military aviation country that can build a 'jack-of-all-trades' that is superior to its competition and perhaps even superior to other dedicated platforms, it is US. It ain't the Russians, not the Europeans, and certainly not the Chinese.

That is why I laugh at the F-35's many critics, Americans or anyone else.

I am glad you replied, I will reply in detail a bit later, I may be going for a short unexpected vacation : ) hehe ...

 

[SpArK]

F-35 grounding explained​

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Executive Vice President and F-35 program head, Tom Burbage, was in Canberra on August 9 to brief media on the latest developments with the JSF program.


During the briefing, Burbage explained that the 20-strong JSF fleet’s recent grounding was a precautionary measure following the failure of an Integrated Power Pack (IPP) - a large APU-like component which provides starting power for the main engine and doubles to provide bleed air to cool the aircraft’s systems - on one of the flight test articles at Edwards AFB, AF-4.


“The airplanes are in a stop mode right now because we had a ground incident with an IPP about a week ago where we had a valve that failed,” Burbage said. “It’s (a)…turbine engine that’s driven by fuel and combusted until it starts the main engine of the airplane, and then the main engine takes over and runs it on bleed air. There’s a valve that has to open to shift from combusted to bleed, and there was a problem with that valve.”
Burbage added that there was an “explosive event” that was controlled by the aircraft’s onboard fire bottles. “There was a flame – we don’t know the extent of the damage yet,” he said. “There is some damage in the surrounding area, parched areas.”


Burbage said he hoped some of the aircraft could return to flight as soon as next week. “We’re hoping to get clearance to go back into ground ops as early as today, and return to flight ops on the instrumented airplanes as early as next week. We have 1500 flights and a thousand hours on that piece of machinery and have never seen this failure before, so it’s good we can identify these things early.”


There are currently 20 F-35s at flight test and training bases; six F-35As are at Edwards AFB for flight science testing and maturity flights; three F-35Cs and five F-35Bs at the US Navy’s Pax River facility and nearby JB Lakehurst-Dix-McGuire; two F-35As at Eglin AFB in Florida preparing for the commencement of crew and maintainer training; and four more F-35As at Fort Worth preparing for delivery to Eglin.


F-35 grounding explained | Australian Aviation Magazine

 

[SpArK]

Partial Return to JSF Testing
​

8/10/2011 3:26 PM CDT

The F-35 Joint Program Office has authorized a return to ground testing for the developmental test aircraft Aug. 10.

This comes after a week-long grounding of the test force owing to a mishap with a test jet. Aug. 2, AF-4, a conventional-takeoff-and-landing version, experienced a failure of its integrated power package (IPP). This led to a fire that was extinguished by onboard fire suppression systems. The IPP provides power to start the engine and provides cooling for the aircraft.

"Preliminary root cause indicates that a control valve did not function properly, which led to the IPP failure," according to Joe Dellavedova, JPO spokesman. "Monitoring this value is the mitigating action to allow developmental test ground operations." The test team is revising its ground monitoring procedures accordingly, he adds.

Reviews are continuing before the 20 F-35s in flying status can return to operations.

Dellavedova notes that margin was built into the schedule during the last restructuring to allow for incidents that occur in development.


Partial Return to JSF Testing

 

[Nav]

F-35 Fleet Cleared For Ground
Operations

.
The F-35 Lighting II fleet has been
cleared to resume ground operations
after a preliminary investigation found
the cause of an electrical subsystem
failure, but a Pentagon official refused
to speculate when the next-generation fighters will be back in the air. Investigators on Wednesday
determined a malfunctioning control
valve caused the integrated power
package of AF-4, the fourth
conventional takeoff and landing
version, to fail Aug. 2, said Joe DellaVedova, a spokesman for the F-35
program. The IPP, built by Honeywell
International, combines the functions
that are performed by an auxiliary
power unit, emergency power system
and environmental controls. Lockheed
Martin Corp. makes the aircraft.

 

[amalakas]

Perhaps saying 'anything' is too much, so I will just say anything about the F-35 in particular. I believe the US military aviation is taking the correct approach with the F-22 and F-35 combination. This is independent of any political will regarding budgeting for these aircrafts but of military needs in the face of constant evolution in military affairs and advances in technology. I have always say that there is nothing wrong with being a 'jack-of-all-trades' as long as the standards are not static. I see nothing wrong with having a dedicated air-air platform like the F-22 to clear the sky of opposition air to allow the more versatile F-35 to do its main job: support ground objectives.

The cost of maintaining a diverse field of hardware to accomplish that job is all too obvious. While the US can support our military, the misinformed criticisms about our defense budget notwithstanding, we can certainly trim our defense budget, as far as military aviation goes, and still be able to accomplish war goals. Why do you think the versatile F-16 and its European equivalents are so popular among smaller countries that do not have global interests and responsibilities but still need a capable all-around air defense fighter? The US Navy made that decision with the F-18E/F Super Hornet. It is not the best aircraft for anything but it is the more capable platform for anything than its competitors. The US Navy needed to simplify its logistics while deployed and the elimination of several platforms from an aircraft carrier certainly achieved that goal. But the US Navy could not have done it unless there is a reasonably capable 'jack-of-all-trades' available.

We screwed up with the F-111 when we tried to design a 'camel' for all the services. But we managed to find a niche mission for the aircraft based upon a unique capability that it gave the Soviets many restless nights when they knew at least a pair of Victor Alert F-111s are always on the ready. Despite the F-111's failure to satisfied many desires, we also succeeded with the F-4. It served excellently with all the services and under diverse environments. If any military aviation country that can build a 'jack-of-all-trades' that is superior to its competition and perhaps even superior to other dedicated platforms, it is US. It ain't the Russians, not the Europeans, and certainly not the Chinese.

That is why I laugh at the F-35's many critics, Americans or anyone else.

Ahh I am back ..

right, you shouldn't laugh at the critics of the F-35, critisism must always be welcome and noone has the divine gift of always being right.
Besides very experienced people have made wrong decisions about systems [an army needed] in the past. There is no evidence that this danger has been eliminated.
The F-35 is a (even leaving the cost aside) very complex and complicated system. You say that it is the "peak" effort of trying to make a modern 21st century workhorse [= jack of all trades according to you] but you at the same time fail to see that such complex systems rarely make up the "grunt in the front line" ..
you yourself have stated that the original idea was that the F-35 would be supplementing the F-22 and only after the F-22(and other stealth platforms) have cleared the way ..

why was that the original idea? what is there inherent in the design of the F-35 that requires that statement?
Your analogy with the F-16 is excellent. I come from a military which conducts air superiority (exercises of course no real conflict) with F-16s .. barring the presence of dedicated Air superiority fighters (F-15s,Su-27/3xs) works superbly, and even then, goes down fighting..
Having been through the same discussion with colegues still in service there is the growing feeling that the F-35 will not fill that slot.

Critisism involves top speed, cruising speed, weapons load, sensitivity to operations from rough airfields the likes southern europe has and not the luxury bases of germany , UK and US. Remember during real operations, the plane needs to be scattered in forward bases in readiness.. the rumour is the assorted equipment needed to go with the plane makes this forbidding ..

also the fact that its bigger brother doesn't yet have the ability to talk with previous generation fighters raises a few eyebrows, what if the F-35 proves incompatible also ? (remember all configurations of the plane will not be the same) ..

Also what master of the skies are we talking about when the plane -aerodynamically- is less capable than other existing platforms... granted according to you the plane's VLO capability eliminates that need. OK let's accept that for arguments sake.
Why then the proven (according to you) to be under the significant thresshold for RADAR detection F-22, is one of the most highly maneuverable fighter jets around ?

Why would the designers of the F-22 choose to make a plane that turns when the missiles do the turning ? and more importantly .. why is this requirement missing from the F-35?

So, very complex, very sensitive, very fragile (according to LM which indicates the plane must be serviced by them, or deterioration in performance), not capable to be obtained in vast numbers as quickly as the F-16 due to complexity of design and production ..

and all that doesn't even touch on the issue of cost.

remember during the battle of britain the true master of the skies was not the spitfire.. it was the harricane...

 

[500]

Why would the designers of the F-22 choose to make a plane that turns when the missiles do the turning ? and more importantly .. why is this requirement missing from the F-35?

First of all F-35 can make turns. Less maneuverable than F-22 but still very maneiverable.

Secondly F-22 is product of cold war. It was designed to provide the maximum air-air capabilities for maximum price and very limited stike capabilities. After the fall of USSR air to air capabilitiesd of F-22 became overkill, but air to ground capabilities are missing and price to high.

Finally when F-22 was developed US did not have DAS, AIM-9X and helmet cueing system (F-22 still missing it). Now US developed all these and importance of maneuverability is reduced. In addition AIM-120 proved itself as very potent missile, which is doing most of the kills today (in Vietnam war less than 4% were killed by Sparrows).

 

[amalakas]

First of all F-35 can make turns. Less maneuverable than F-22 but still very maneiverable.

Nope it is not, it is at best equal to some of the 3rd generation (F-16 era) fighters but not all and definitely not as some of the 4th gen planes.

 

[500]

Nope it is not, it is at best equal to some of the 3rd generation (F-16 era) fighters but not all and definitely not as some of the 4th gen planes.

F-16 is 4 gen. It has more than enouugh maneuverability.

 

[amalakas]

F-16 is 4 gen. It has more than enouugh maneuverability.

there is a bit of debate on that, when we got our first batch of F-16s we heralded the era of the 3rd gen planes.

more recently on in the special press, the F-16 was called 4th gen.

well, the Rafale and the EF2000 were in design and barely testing of prototypes when the F-16 and MiG 29 were already serving, they are not 5th Gen planes and I don't much care for 4++ and other marketing crap... to me (and you can obviously disagree) the f-16 is 3rd gen, the EF2000,Rafale is 4th Gen etc etc. . now if the F-35 is inferior aerodynamically and kinematicaly from a 3rd and 4th gen plane then to me there is an issue there...

 

[amalakas]

Also i find it a bit strange that although the DAS is supposed to be a true 360^ coverage system ( i have no reason to doubt it) capable of picking up aircraft, missiles, vehicles etc etc, thus enabling the F-35 never to be surprised even if a threat is beyond the coverage of its radar.. there is a distinct denial and disbelief that the F-35 itself can be the target subject of an equivalent system.

Now this is down to two things, either the DAS doesn't work on F-35s (i.e. two F-35s flying in tandem will not see each other in their DASs) or (Most likely scenario) the US and LM in particular do not have much faith in the capabilities of the competition made Optical systems.. now I also smell a rat here...

 

[Zabaniyah]

there is a bit of debate on that, when we got our first batch of F-16s we heralded the era of the 3rd gen planes.

more recently on in the special press, the F-16 was called 4th gen.

well, the Rafale and the EF2000 were in design and barely testing of prototypes when the F-16 and MiG 29 were already serving, they are not 5th Gen planes and I don't much care for 4++ and other marketing crap... to me (and you can obviously disagree) the f-16 is 3rd gen, the EF2000,Rafale is 4th Gen etc etc. . now if the F-35 is inferior aerodynamically and kinematicaly from a 3rd and 4th gen plane then to me there is an issue there...

F-16 is not a 3rd generation fighter. If you are talking about 3rd generation fighters, then you are looking at the likes of the F-4 Phantom and the MiG-21 (among many).

The F-16 is a 4th generation fighter and came through many blocks (each block coming with improvements). It has been put to great use by both the Israelis and Pakistanis, and they can only say good things about it.

And of-course, the F-35 is 5th generation. It's not as great as the F-22 in aerodynamic and 'stealthy' terms, but comes with better avionics. Put a similar avionics package on the F-22, we have a monster here

Politics and economic factors aside, I think the F-35 complementing the F-22 is feasible. Although, I find it too bad that the NATF (Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter) program was cancelled. It would've been a great aircraft

 

[amalakas]

Politics and economic factors aside, I think the F-35 complementing the F-22 is feasible. Although, I find it too bad that the NATF (Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter) program was cancelled. It would've been a great aircraft

I never said it is not feasible, I just wondered if it was/is the right choice.

as far as gens are concerned, it's a matter of opinion. Although I accept the wide concensous is that the F-16/M2000/MiG29 are 4 gen now.

However that means you have to accept 4++ gen and 4.5 gen planes which i don't much like.