User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 6:41:47 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tyvar: what kills me is the airforce mission capable numbers collapsing to 0% while the Navy's F-35C mission capable numbers are at least trending the right way, so they are at least getting birds into the air. What the hell is the airforce doing? Certanly not an expert, but I know air force F35s fly all the time. It might be a difference in definition, it might be more accurate reporting by the air force, it might be the airforce highlighting a problem for more funding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 7:00:53 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: What do you believe we should be buying instead of fifth gen fighters? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally Posted By R_S: I'm thinking that 29% number is optimistic. These are actual GAO charts: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/33354/F35_readiness_jpg-3190369.JPG Over time the Full Mission Capable rate of the older aircraft have gone to ZERO. ZERO. Let me say it again... ZERO. Does anyone think that is a good use of our defense dollars? What do you believe we should be buying instead of fifth gen fighters? Parts to keep those already purchased flying? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 7:13:44 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BoneB1B: No fighter has ever been ahead of schedule and underweight. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BoneB1B: Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman: Ah, a story as old as military aviation itself. No fighter has ever been ahead of schedule and underweight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 7:20:54 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryAnd it went thru multiple revisions for two years to make it a D, the version we all think of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 8:06:09 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BoneB1B: And it went thru multiple revisions for two years to make it a D, the version we all think of. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BoneB1B: And it went thru multiple revisions for two years to make it a D, the version we all think of. Those revisions covered over 5500 production aircraft. |
|
|
|
FM, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 8:10:45 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: What do you believe we should be buying instead of fifth gen fighters? Anything that actually works? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 8:18:30 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sierra-def: Reminds me of when the B-29 when it came out and all the engine problems it had, eventually the engines were improved but there was growing pains. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sierra-def: Reminds me of when the B-29 when it came out and all the engine problems it had, eventually the engines were improved but there was growing pains. The P-51 also went through a rather famous engine improvement. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 8:33:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: supernoma]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DirkericPitt: Certanly not an expert, but I know air force F35s fly all the time. It might be a difference in definition, it might be more accurate reporting by the air force, it might be the airforce highlighting a problem for more funding. F-35s are flying all the time, however the Air Force has several defined statuses for flying aircraft: Fully Mission Capable (FMC), Mission Capable (MC), and Not Mission Capable Airworthy (NMCAW). All can fly but only two you can (or rather should) take into battle. I don't recall all the specific performance metrics they reported to Congress. More money could certainly help immediately and in the long term; better contract preparation would be the best but that time has passed. Air Force Secretary Kendall testified this week that the Air Force does not have the intellectual property rights to the F-35 weapon system. This means the Air Force is beholden to Lockheed for parts and to purchase the rights is insanely expensive. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 8:35:14 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RealityCheck0311: The F35 will turn 18 years old next year so I'm sure Gaetz will immediately lose interest. We see what you did there. Well done. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 8:47:43 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: You got any sources other than GAO? F-35I seems to be doing quite well. U.S. F-35 Sustainment Lead Details Israel Fleet Ops Since October Anyone else find it funny that the F-35 is coming under attack by Gaetz at the same time Boeing is under the microscope? The F-35 and Boeing are good things and necessary things for the US. No surprise the Left is attacking them. First attack step is to install ineffective top management. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 8:48:54 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By supernoma: F-35s are flying all the time, however the Air Force has several defined statuses for flying aircraft: Fully Mission Capable (FMC), Mission Capable (MC), and Not Mission Capable Airworthy (NMCAW). All can fly but only two you can (or rather should) take into battle. I don't recall all the specific performance metrics they reported to Congress. More money could certainly help immediately and in the long term; better contract preparation would be the best but that time has passed. Air Force Secretary Kendall testified this week that the Air Force does not have the intellectual property rights to the F-35 weapon system. This means the Air Force is beholden to Lockheed for parts and to purchase the rights is insanely expensive. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By supernoma: Originally Posted By DirkericPitt: Certanly not an expert, but I know air force F35s fly all the time. It might be a difference in definition, it might be more accurate reporting by the air force, it might be the airforce highlighting a problem for more funding. F-35s are flying all the time, however the Air Force has several defined statuses for flying aircraft: Fully Mission Capable (FMC), Mission Capable (MC), and Not Mission Capable Airworthy (NMCAW). All can fly but only two you can (or rather should) take into battle. I don't recall all the specific performance metrics they reported to Congress. More money could certainly help immediately and in the long term; better contract preparation would be the best but that time has passed. Air Force Secretary Kendall testified this week that the Air Force does not have the intellectual property rights to the F-35 weapon system. This means the Air Force is beholden to Lockheed for parts and to purchase the rights is insanely expensive. MC consists of FMC time and PMC (partially mission capable) time. There are 14 total status codes a jet can be put under with differences between whether it's scheduled or not and whether the delay is for maintenance, parts, or both. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 8:49:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: SmilingBandit]
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AV8B6015: Anything that actually works? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AV8B6015: Originally Posted By SmilingBandit: What do you believe we should be buying instead of fifth gen fighters? Anything that actually works? There's a special irony in someone with an AV-8B username talking smack on an airframe with normal teething problems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 8:57:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: AZCOP]
[#13]
What is the Israeli F-35I FMC rate?
FWIW, I couldn't find it on the errornet. edit: castlebravo84 found the answer: 75% full-mission-capable rate and an 85% mission-capable rate despite a 565% jump in monthly average flight hours over a six-month period Jay |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:00:36 AM EDT
[#14]
Bronco or something else for the short carriers could keep up with the osprey. Im not seeing the use of the vert jet anymore
|
|
|
|
BHS
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:03:10 AM EDT
[#15]
Some of you should look up the definition of Fully Mission Capable (FMC) before weighing in on this topic.
The F-35 does a lot more than its predecessor, therefore there’s more to maintain. That’s normal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:09:47 AM EDT
[#16]
Secretary Kendall and General Allvin seem to be about as honest about this as they can.
Kendall talking about the problem of the government not purchasing the intellectual software property from Lockheed, leaves the military wholly dependent of Lockheed. It like farmers caught up in a situation, where they have to go to JD to get their equipment up and running, because JD owns all their intellectual software property. His question back in 2010 about who is running the F-35 program, the pentagon, or Lockheed, is telling as well. Jay |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:13:53 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R_S: I'm thinking that 29% number is optimistic. These are actual GAO charts: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/33354/F35_readiness_jpg-3190369.JPG Over time the Full Mission Capable rate of the older aircraft have gone to ZERO. ZERO. Let me say it again... ZERO. Does anyone think that is a good use of our defense dollars? Some of those airplanes were development airplanes intended to go to the boneyard and gate guard poles (where the Sun and weather will not be kind). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:15:00 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman: Ah, a story as old as military aviation itself. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman: Originally Posted By Crazyascanbe: They overloaded them with more shit and now it is under powered. Ah, a story as old as military aviation itself. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:16:32 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BoneB1B: 30% commonality seems a bit high. I guess you can get that if you count pilot controls and fuel pumps, p-clamps , and fuel line connectors Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BoneB1B: Originally Posted By Hesperus: The story I hear is that the current engine cannot provide enough electrical power and cooling for the F-35s onboard computers. P&W is working on fixing this, but there's also the idea that GE could build a whole new type of engine which would, if it worked. Address these issues, but this new engine would not be compatible with the lift fan system. Rendering the B model unworkable. Its a mess, no 2 ways about it. I'm firmly of the view that this is because the plane is too small to fit all this stuff. The existing F-35 is already 3 different planes with only 30% parts commonality between the whole fleet. I see no way out of this except an apocalyptic war which would expunge the military industrial complex in its current form. Likely replacing it with something far more corrupt, powerful and terrifying. 30% commonality seems a bit high. I guess you can get that if you count pilot controls and fuel pumps, p-clamps , and fuel line connectors That's about right. The data plates might be the same size and shape, but don't bet on the attach fasteners. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:17:01 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sierra-def: Reminds me of when the B-29 when it came out and all the engine problems it had, eventually the engines were improved but there was growing pains. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:22:19 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fargo007: This plane, and it's advertised (but never proven or even demonstrated) capabilities are complete bullshit. The truth comes out eventually. All of the guys who I flew F-15Es with in combat who are now flying F-35s say Fat Amy is better. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:23:44 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BoneB1B: The Israelis are happy with their F-35i’s. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BoneB1B: Originally Posted By fargo007: This plane, and it's advertised (but never proven or even demonstrated) capabilities are complete bullshit. The truth comes out eventually. The Israelis are happy with their F-35i’s. They'll be even happier when the XA100 engine becomes available. Jay |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:34:06 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Millennial: that doesn;t make a lot of sense... since its inception there have been almost two decades of computer processing improvement, which includes more efficiency giving lower TDPs and/or higher performance. I mean really, just think how much more awesome computers are in 2024 than 2005. Why would they replace the entire powerplant of a jet when they could just develop better computers with superior processors and thermal management. I'm sure it's some level of bureaucracy or artificial inefficiency that's not letting the people that know how to fix the problems actually fix the problems how they want. Alot of it too is that it's a fighter supposedly with no equal and there's not a current war with a near peer ... so there's no urgency and engineers essentially have forever to keep tinkering and "fixing" things until they no longer work. The hallmark of a true engineer; If it ain't broke, fix it until it is. What they really need to do is replace the F35B lift fan with a generator/capacitor electrical generation unit (that has 30000 shaft horse power on tap at the front of the engine) and then start hanging 300kW laser-pods off the pylons. pew! pew! pew! (laser noises) Imagine trying to fight an aircraft that can kill you anywhere line of sight at the speed of light. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Millennial: Originally Posted By Hesperus: The story I hear is that the current engine cannot provide enough electrical power and cooling for the F-35s onboard computers. P&W is working on fixing this, but there's also the idea that GE could build a whole new type of engine which would, if it worked. Address these issues, but this new engine would not be compatible with the lift fan system. Rendering the B model unworkable. Its a mess, no 2 ways about it. I'm firmly of the view that this is because the plane is too small to fit all this stuff. The existing F-35 is already 3 different planes with only 30% parts commonality between the whole fleet. I see no way out of this except an apocalyptic war which would expunge the military industrial complex in its current form. Likely replacing it with something far more corrupt, powerful and terrifying. that doesn;t make a lot of sense... since its inception there have been almost two decades of computer processing improvement, which includes more efficiency giving lower TDPs and/or higher performance. I mean really, just think how much more awesome computers are in 2024 than 2005. Why would they replace the entire powerplant of a jet when they could just develop better computers with superior processors and thermal management. I'm sure it's some level of bureaucracy or artificial inefficiency that's not letting the people that know how to fix the problems actually fix the problems how they want. Alot of it too is that it's a fighter supposedly with no equal and there's not a current war with a near peer ... so there's no urgency and engineers essentially have forever to keep tinkering and "fixing" things until they no longer work. The hallmark of a true engineer; If it ain't broke, fix it until it is. What they really need to do is replace the F35B lift fan with a generator/capacitor electrical generation unit (that has 30000 shaft horse power on tap at the front of the engine) and then start hanging 300kW laser-pods off the pylons. pew! pew! pew! (laser noises) Imagine trying to fight an aircraft that can kill you anywhere line of sight at the speed of light. LM does not have halls full of engineers sitting around tinkering, there's either a contract for the work, or not. When not, the staff is moved to other projects and most of the job shoppers laid off. There will be small pots of IRAD money that support what might look like tinkering, just long enough to score a CRAD contract to continue fiddling. Some of that work makes its way into production, current or future programs. Computational power doesn't exist in only a central computer or two. And I wonder whether F-35 uses one, I never bothered to look at the subsystems due to lack of interest. In any case, computation is distributed amongst all of the electronic equipment. The trick is to keep all of it cool and make certain the slow devices can't create a bottleneck. I suspect there are problems with volume and space around the equipment. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:35:02 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: All of the guys who I flew F-15Es with in combat who are now flying F-35s say Fat Amy is better. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By fargo007: This plane, and it's advertised (but never proven or even demonstrated) capabilities are complete bullshit. The truth comes out eventually. All of the guys who I flew F-15Es with in combat who are now flying F-35s say Fat Amy is better. Probably because they don't like talking on the interphone. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:48:39 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher15: The first operational ones came online what, 10 years ago? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher15: Originally Posted By RealityCheck0311: The F35 will turn 18 years old next year so I'm sure Gaetz will immediately lose interest. Full rate production was approved in 2024. LM gets my sympathy for the task of developing three airplanes simultaneously. The of outward appearance is an illusion, it's everything inside and the unique requirements of each service that matter. These aren't tri service JDAM kits that are manageable. Plus the Navy is a customer and if F-35C and F-35B programs are like the F-18, the Navy attempts to dictate how the corporation operates. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:52:00 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jb31: I can't believe an American aerospace company can have this many issues with a plane. They should have had Boing build them. Boeing is lucky the PWSC airplane was not selected. That would have been a canceled program by now. Maybe better for the nation as a new airplane would be competed to fill the holes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:58:11 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By guns762: The P-51 also went through a rather famous engine improvement. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By guns762: Originally Posted By sierra-def: Reminds me of when the B-29 when it came out and all the engine problems it had, eventually the engines were improved but there was growing pains. The P-51 also went through a rather famous engine improvement. Arguably it was a 'change' that may have been considered from the outset. The early Allison install met all requirements as set forth by the RAF, as they bought the Mustang as a Warhawk replacement and had not spec'd high altitude and long range. Later the USAAF wanted/needed both of those and the marriage of the Mustang air frame with the Merlin answered that. Was the Merlin considered from the beginning? Ford was contracted to build Merlin engines. That did not happen and Packard eventually became the supplier. The P51 and Ford/Merlin projectz were happening in a very hectic 1940. With the Ford/Merlin never goingt into production. and the pressure on to supply aircraft, the Allison was chosen/used. Or so my aging memory recalls. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 10:05:51 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tyvar: what kills me is the airforce mission capable numbers collapsing to 0% while the Navy's F-35C mission capable numbers are at least trending the right way, so they are at least getting birds into the air. What the hell is the airforce doing? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tyvar: Originally Posted By CarlosC: Do we have any F35 maintainers on here? I'm curious what kind of pressure they're under (and the Sq CCs) to get better numbers. FMC rate was always a big when I was in and there was hell to pay if we slipped - endless weekend trying to get jets back up. That chart showing the steady decline is like a death march. what kills me is the airforce mission capable numbers collapsing to 0% while the Navy's F-35C mission capable numbers are at least trending the right way, so they are at least getting birds into the air. What the hell is the airforce doing? I'll claim the Navy is cooking the books. There will be a long list of caveats and exceptions to get numbers for the boss. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 10:09:38 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By guns762: The P-51 also went through a rather famous engine improvement. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By guns762: Originally Posted By sierra-def: Reminds me of when the B-29 when it came out and all the engine problems it had, eventually the engines were improved but there was growing pains. The P-51 also went through a rather famous engine improvement. Yes it did! |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 10:17:28 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: All of the guys who I flew F-15Es with in combat who are now flying F-35s say Fat Amy is better. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By fargo007: This plane, and it's advertised (but never proven or even demonstrated) capabilities are complete bullshit. The truth comes out eventually. All of the guys who I flew F-15Es with in combat who are now flying F-35s say Fat Amy is better. That's high praise considering how much ass the Mudhen kicks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 10:18:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: R_S]
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AeroE: Some of those airplanes were development airplanes intended to go to the boneyard and gate guard poles (where the Sun and weather will not be kind). Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AeroE: Originally Posted By R_S: I'm thinking that 29% number is optimistic. These are actual GAO charts: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/33354/F35_readiness_jpg-3190369.JPG Over time the Full Mission Capable rate of the older aircraft have gone to ZERO. ZERO. Let me say it again... ZERO. Does anyone think that is a good use of our defense dollars? Some of those airplanes were development airplanes intended to go to the boneyard and gate guard poles (where the Sun and weather will not be kind). I'll post the CBO data from 2023 (again): CBO Availability Rates of F-35s, by Age  Looks like availablity fell from 70% to ~45% in just five years. Availability Rates of Air Force Fighters, by Age:  https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58942 Yeah, it's born to be a hangar queen |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 10:21:13 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R_S: I'll post the CBO data from 2023 (again): CBO Availability Rates of F-35s, by Age https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/images/full-reports/2023/58902-fig4_availability-age.png Looks like availablity fell from 70% to ~45% in just five years. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/images/full-reports/2023/58902-fig6_availability-air-force2.png Availability Rates of Air Force Fighters, by Age: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58942 Yeah, it's born to be a hanger queen Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R_S: Originally Posted By AeroE: Originally Posted By R_S: I'm thinking that 29% number is optimistic. These are actual GAO charts: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/33354/F35_readiness_jpg-3190369.JPG Over time the Full Mission Capable rate of the older aircraft have gone to ZERO. ZERO. Let me say it again... ZERO. Does anyone think that is a good use of our defense dollars? Some of those airplanes were development airplanes intended to go to the boneyard and gate guard poles (where the Sun and weather will not be kind). I'll post the CBO data from 2023 (again): CBO Availability Rates of F-35s, by Age https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/images/full-reports/2023/58902-fig4_availability-age.png Looks like availablity fell from 70% to ~45% in just five years. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/images/full-reports/2023/58902-fig6_availability-air-force2.png Availability Rates of Air Force Fighters, by Age: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58942 Yeah, it's born to be a hanger queen A hangar holds airplanes. A hanger holds clothes. |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 10:32:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Millennial]
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AeroE: LM does not have halls full of engineers sitting around tinkering, there's either a contract for the work, or not. When not, the staff is moved to other projects and most of the job shoppers laid off. There will be small pots of IRAD money that support what might look like tinkering, just long enough to score a CRAD contract to continue fiddling. Some of that work makes its way into production, current or future programs. Computational power doesn't exist in only a central computer or two. And I wonder whether F-35 uses one, I never bothered to look at the subsystems due to lack of interest. In any case, computation is distributed amongst all of the electronic equipment. The trick is to keep all of it cool and make certain the slow devices can't create a bottleneck. I suspect there are problems with volume and space around the equipment. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AeroE: Originally Posted By Millennial: Originally Posted By Hesperus: The story I hear is that the current engine cannot provide enough electrical power and cooling for the F-35s onboard computers. P&W is working on fixing this, but there's also the idea that GE could build a whole new type of engine which would, if it worked. Address these issues, but this new engine would not be compatible with the lift fan system. Rendering the B model unworkable. Its a mess, no 2 ways about it. I'm firmly of the view that this is because the plane is too small to fit all this stuff. The existing F-35 is already 3 different planes with only 30% parts commonality between the whole fleet. I see no way out of this except an apocalyptic war which would expunge the military industrial complex in its current form. Likely replacing it with something far more corrupt, powerful and terrifying. that doesn;t make a lot of sense... since its inception there have been almost two decades of computer processing improvement, which includes more efficiency giving lower TDPs and/or higher performance. I mean really, just think how much more awesome computers are in 2024 than 2005. Why would they replace the entire powerplant of a jet when they could just develop better computers with superior processors and thermal management. I'm sure it's some level of bureaucracy or artificial inefficiency that's not letting the people that know how to fix the problems actually fix the problems how they want. Alot of it too is that it's a fighter supposedly with no equal and there's not a current war with a near peer ... so there's no urgency and engineers essentially have forever to keep tinkering and "fixing" things until they no longer work. The hallmark of a true engineer; If it ain't broke, fix it until it is. What they really need to do is replace the F35B lift fan with a generator/capacitor electrical generation unit (that has 30000 shaft horse power on tap at the front of the engine) and then start hanging 300kW laser-pods off the pylons. pew! pew! pew! (laser noises) Imagine trying to fight an aircraft that can kill you anywhere line of sight at the speed of light. LM does not have halls full of engineers sitting around tinkering, there's either a contract for the work, or not. When not, the staff is moved to other projects and most of the job shoppers laid off. There will be small pots of IRAD money that support what might look like tinkering, just long enough to score a CRAD contract to continue fiddling. Some of that work makes its way into production, current or future programs. Computational power doesn't exist in only a central computer or two. And I wonder whether F-35 uses one, I never bothered to look at the subsystems due to lack of interest. In any case, computation is distributed amongst all of the electronic equipment. The trick is to keep all of it cool and make certain the slow devices can't create a bottleneck. I suspect there are problems with volume and space around the equipment. I know. I’ve been at stark for 16+ years F35 was one of the first programs I worked out of school. Mostly bitch cad work and drawing updates since I was so green. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 11:06:54 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher15: If only the second engine wasnt fucking cancelled Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher15: Originally Posted By Hesperus: The story I hear is that the current engine cannot provide enough electrical power and cooling for the F-35s onboard computers. P&W is working on fixing this, but there's also the idea that GE could build a whole new type of engine which would, if it worked. Address these issues, but this new engine would not be compatible with the lift fan system. Rendering the B model unworkable. Its a mess, no 2 ways about it. I'm firmly of the view that this is because the plane is too small to fit all this stuff. The existing F-35 is already 3 different planes with only 30% parts commonality between the whole fleet. I see no way out of this except an apocalyptic war which would expunge the military industrial complex in its current form. Likely replacing it with something far more corrupt, powerful and terrifying. A single engine naval dog fighter is a travesty. We've never done that before, for good reason. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 11:09:46 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BoneB1B: No fighter has ever been ahead of schedule and underweight. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BoneB1B: Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman: Ah, a story as old as military aviation itself. No fighter has ever been ahead of schedule and underweight. They built the P57 in three days from concept to delivery in Weija 2. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 11:11:51 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tyvar: what kills me is the airforce mission capable numbers collapsing to 0% while the Navy's F-35C mission capable numbers are at least trending the right way, so they are at least getting birds into the air. What the hell is the airforce doing? Following the orders of their demonic masters by degrading our sovereign might so we have to roll over to the CCP. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 11:17:59 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By realwar: $90,000 for this little bag of bushings.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYWie96j3aQIf he wanted to cut the budget, he should go after welfare FWA. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 11:18:48 AM EDT
[#38]
I bet Isreal's F35's are nearly all combat ready. Maybe it's because of the user or politics
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 11:19:19 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AV8B6015: Anything that actually works? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AV8B6015: Originally Posted By SmilingBandit: What do you believe we should be buying instead of fifth gen fighters? Anything that actually works? Like the P38 Can opener |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 11:24:37 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tyvar: I realized I needed to reply directly to this so that everybody can see how bullshit this chart is. The aircraft built between 2008 and 2011 include a dozen test airframes, and less then 40 LRIP airframes. The first LRIP airframes ordered in 2007 were not delivered until 2011 when they delivered 9 and in 2012 they delivered 29, and we are talking all block 1 aircraft which were never combat capable, that didn't happen till Block 2. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 2:36:42 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tyvar: I realized I needed to reply directly to this so that everybody can see how bullshit this chart is. The aircraft built between 2008 and 2011 include a dozen test airframes, and less then 40 LRIP airframes. The first LRIP airframes ordered in 2007 were not delivered until 2011 when they delivered 9 and in 2012 they delivered 29, and we are talking all block 1 aircraft which were never combat capable, that didn't happen till Block 2. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tyvar: Originally Posted By R_S: I'm thinking that 29% number is optimistic. These are actual GAO charts: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/33354/F35_readiness_jpg-3190369.JPG Over time the Full Mission Capable rate of the older aircraft have gone to ZERO. ZERO. Let me say it again... ZERO. Does anyone think that is a good use of our defense dollars? I realized I needed to reply directly to this so that everybody can see how bullshit this chart is. The aircraft built between 2008 and 2011 include a dozen test airframes, and less then 40 LRIP airframes. The first LRIP airframes ordered in 2007 were not delivered until 2011 when they delivered 9 and in 2012 they delivered 29, and we are talking all block 1 aircraft which were never combat capable, that didn't happen till Block 2. For anyone still reading this thread that didn't already know what GOA/POGO is all about, now you do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 2:49:35 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: Probably because they don't like talking on the interphone. There's a "cold mic" switch in the Strike that gets used plenty often. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 2:50:35 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: That's high praise considering how much ass the Mudhen kicks. Indeed, which is why the people who claim the F-35 sucks based on things they've read on the internet are usually talking out of their rectums. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 2:52:23 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By iwouldntknow: A single engine naval dog fighter is a travesty. We've never done that before, for good reason. LOL, wut? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 4:25:34 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: LOL, wut? https://theaviationgeekclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/F-8-AIM-9.jpg Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By iwouldntknow: A single engine naval dog fighter is a travesty. We've never done that before, for good reason. LOL, wut? https://theaviationgeekclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/F-8-AIM-9.jpg Sir this is GD. Please be outraged at the way they're wasting our money and how dumb they are. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 4:29:18 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By iwouldntknow: A single engine naval dog fighter is a travesty. We've never done that before, for good reason. wildcat hellcat corsair |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 4:37:25 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KaerMorhenResident: Lockheed Martin like Boeing and so many other modern manufacturers have overrelied on subcontractors and created an overly complicated web of production that is causing them deep issues. Ray Charles could have seen this coming, but somehow modern Western society rewards mediocre jackasses with higher and higher positions both within the private and public sector. It's a good thing all those peeps at all those companies are current on DEI training. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 5:20:08 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AeroE: LM does not have halls full of engineers sitting around tinkering, there's either a contract for the work, or not. When not, the staff is moved to other projects and most of the job shoppers laid off. There will be small pots of IRAD money that support what might look like tinkering, just long enough to score a CRAD contract to continue fiddling. Some of that work makes its way into production, current or future programs. Computational power doesn't exist in only a central computer or two. And I wonder whether F-35 uses one, I never bothered to look at the subsystems due to lack of interest. In any case, computation is distributed amongst all of the electronic equipment. The trick is to keep all of it cool and make certain the slow devices can't create a bottleneck. I suspect there are problems with volume and space around the equipment. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AeroE: Originally Posted By Millennial: Originally Posted By Hesperus: The story I hear is that the current engine cannot provide enough electrical power and cooling for the F-35s onboard computers. P&W is working on fixing this, but there's also the idea that GE could build a whole new type of engine which would, if it worked. Address these issues, but this new engine would not be compatible with the lift fan system. Rendering the B model unworkable. Its a mess, no 2 ways about it. I'm firmly of the view that this is because the plane is too small to fit all this stuff. The existing F-35 is already 3 different planes with only 30% parts commonality between the whole fleet. I see no way out of this except an apocalyptic war which would expunge the military industrial complex in its current form. Likely replacing it with something far more corrupt, powerful and terrifying. that doesn;t make a lot of sense... since its inception there have been almost two decades of computer processing improvement, which includes more efficiency giving lower TDPs and/or higher performance. I mean really, just think how much more awesome computers are in 2024 than 2005. Why would they replace the entire powerplant of a jet when they could just develop better computers with superior processors and thermal management. I'm sure it's some level of bureaucracy or artificial inefficiency that's not letting the people that know how to fix the problems actually fix the problems how they want. Alot of it too is that it's a fighter supposedly with no equal and there's not a current war with a near peer ... so there's no urgency and engineers essentially have forever to keep tinkering and "fixing" things until they no longer work. The hallmark of a true engineer; If it ain't broke, fix it until it is. What they really need to do is replace the F35B lift fan with a generator/capacitor electrical generation unit (that has 30000 shaft horse power on tap at the front of the engine) and then start hanging 300kW laser-pods off the pylons. pew! pew! pew! (laser noises) Imagine trying to fight an aircraft that can kill you anywhere line of sight at the speed of light. LM does not have halls full of engineers sitting around tinkering, there's either a contract for the work, or not. When not, the staff is moved to other projects and most of the job shoppers laid off. There will be small pots of IRAD money that support what might look like tinkering, just long enough to score a CRAD contract to continue fiddling. Some of that work makes its way into production, current or future programs. Computational power doesn't exist in only a central computer or two. And I wonder whether F-35 uses one, I never bothered to look at the subsystems due to lack of interest. In any case, computation is distributed amongst all of the electronic equipment. The trick is to keep all of it cool and make certain the slow devices can't create a bottleneck. I suspect there are problems with volume and space around the equipment. I think that sensitive military equipment sticks to larger die sizes than commercial. The reason I've heard is improved resistance to nuclear weapons effects, but it is also related to the availability of US chip fabs with the correct programs in place to produce weapons components. Thus, even with improved processing power on the commercial market, those gains don't necessarily translate to military applications. Plus, I am guessing now... the operating system is qualified for a particular architecture, and requalifying it is a bigger job than upgrading the engine 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:33:41 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PlaysWithAtoms: I think that sensitive military equipment sticks to larger die sizes than commercial. The reason I've heard is improved resistance to nuclear weapons effects, but it is also related to the availability of US chip fabs with the correct programs in place to produce weapons components. Thus, even with improved processing power on the commercial market, those gains don't necessarily translate to military applications. Plus, I am guessing now... the operating system is qualified for a particular architecture, and requalifying it is a bigger job than upgrading the engine Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PlaysWithAtoms: Originally Posted By AeroE: Originally Posted By Millennial: Originally Posted By Hesperus: The story I hear is that the current engine cannot provide enough electrical power and cooling for the F-35s onboard computers. P&W is working on fixing this, but there's also the idea that GE could build a whole new type of engine which would, if it worked. Address these issues, but this new engine would not be compatible with the lift fan system. Rendering the B model unworkable. Its a mess, no 2 ways about it. I'm firmly of the view that this is because the plane is too small to fit all this stuff. The existing F-35 is already 3 different planes with only 30% parts commonality between the whole fleet. I see no way out of this except an apocalyptic war which would expunge the military industrial complex in its current form. Likely replacing it with something far more corrupt, powerful and terrifying. that doesn;t make a lot of sense... since its inception there have been almost two decades of computer processing improvement, which includes more efficiency giving lower TDPs and/or higher performance. I mean really, just think how much more awesome computers are in 2024 than 2005. Why would they replace the entire powerplant of a jet when they could just develop better computers with superior processors and thermal management. I'm sure it's some level of bureaucracy or artificial inefficiency that's not letting the people that know how to fix the problems actually fix the problems how they want. Alot of it too is that it's a fighter supposedly with no equal and there's not a current war with a near peer ... so there's no urgency and engineers essentially have forever to keep tinkering and "fixing" things until they no longer work. The hallmark of a true engineer; If it ain't broke, fix it until it is. What they really need to do is replace the F35B lift fan with a generator/capacitor electrical generation unit (that has 30000 shaft horse power on tap at the front of the engine) and then start hanging 300kW laser-pods off the pylons. pew! pew! pew! (laser noises) Imagine trying to fight an aircraft that can kill you anywhere line of sight at the speed of light. LM does not have halls full of engineers sitting around tinkering, there's either a contract for the work, or not. When not, the staff is moved to other projects and most of the job shoppers laid off. There will be small pots of IRAD money that support what might look like tinkering, just long enough to score a CRAD contract to continue fiddling. Some of that work makes its way into production, current or future programs. Computational power doesn't exist in only a central computer or two. And I wonder whether F-35 uses one, I never bothered to look at the subsystems due to lack of interest. In any case, computation is distributed amongst all of the electronic equipment. The trick is to keep all of it cool and make certain the slow devices can't create a bottleneck. I suspect there are problems with volume and space around the equipment. I think that sensitive military equipment sticks to larger die sizes than commercial. The reason I've heard is improved resistance to nuclear weapons effects, but it is also related to the availability of US chip fabs with the correct programs in place to produce weapons components. Thus, even with improved processing power on the commercial market, those gains don't necessarily translate to military applications. Plus, I am guessing now... the operating system is qualified for a particular architecture, and requalifying it is a bigger job than upgrading the engine Someone should research the number of 8088 processors in use. Probably still a surprising number. $8.50 at Digikey. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:37:08 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BoneB1B: The Israelis are happy with their F-35i’s. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BoneB1B: Originally Posted By fargo007: This plane, and it's advertised (but never proven or even demonstrated) capabilities are complete bullshit. The truth comes out eventually. The Israelis are happy with their F-35i’s. Hard to complain about free shit |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
