The F-35

[ACAV]

52 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

I know the Marine version is but what about the airforce version?

Seems to be:

20160827_Luke_Receives_100th_F-35.pdf

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ACAV said:

Seems to be:

20160827_Luke_Receives_100th_F-35.pdf

thanks

[Super 80]

4 hours ago, J.O. said:

To be clear and despite all the hype, the F35 is working and is deployed in an operational role.

About fifty years ago they said the same thing about the F-111, deployed it to Vietnam and immediately crashed half of them. It was another four or five years before they were actually operational in US and Australian service.

[ACAV]

8 minutes ago, Super 80 said:

About fifty years ago they said the same thing about the F-111, deployed it to Vietnam and immediately crashed half of them. It was another four or five years before they were actually operational in US and Australian service.

I think this is all more likely to resemble the A320 hype of ...OMG it's too radical and new after the Paris airshow. And the

787....OMG it's too radical and new after the Battery issue. The A320 and B787 are both fantastically reliable and safe aircraft so far in my experience.

No ridiculously big issues so far with the F -35 that I'm aware of. Just delays. I for one am more comfortable flying on a delayed aircraft then one rushed through a turn. Don't believe the general public feels the same, but they should.

There has been a lot of bad press. Some, I suspect, generated by East Asian/ Eastern European interests and propagated by a cynical Western culture that prefers to watch "Fails" on YouTube rater than "Wins".

Time will tell.

[boestar]

It would seem that my info on the HMDS system is out of date and the software upgrade was carried out that corrected the issues with display latency and blurry images. Pilot reviews of the system seem to be positive.  The problem I have with a 100% integrated system like the HMDS is that it is required to operate the aircraft.  Now I have not done the research to determine to what extent but it would seem that a system that was ridled with issues from the beginning of the program could fail.  Where does that leave the pilot when it does?

Don't get me wrong, I like the aircraft and the technology.  It has a large "cool" factor in my eyes.  But do we, Canada, NEED it?  We do very well with a fleet of clapped out F-18 aircraft to the point where the US used us more than their own fleet for some missions in the middle east.  We were better at it because we rely on the PILOT not the technology to get the job done.

Look back to the aircraft in Vietnam.  They couldnt hit the broadside of a barn because they relied on the missle technology of the era.  Lost dog fighting skills because the pilots got used to fire and forget.  When the technology was no longer capable  (close in combat) they couldn't get the job done.

Here we have a wizz bang aircraft with all the technology but what happens when seat of the pants becomes necessary?  In all honesty the F-35 could have the pilot removed and turn it into a UCAV just replace the pilot with the helmet on a swivel and leave him in a control room looking at the images and remotely flying the plane.  All of his vision is synthetic anyway.  You know it is the next step.

Cool?  Yes.  Necessary in Canada?  I'm not so sure.

 

[boestar]

ACAV.  In the war game carried out with the NATO forces, Canada continues to perform among the best even with the current fleet of F-18.  This is not far off of the SnowBirds being the best aerial demonstration team out there despite having the oldest aircraft out there.

We are good at getting it done no matter the odds.

[ACAV]

Good to know we have the very best manning our fighters. I understand your concerns re automation and the eroding of the individuals flying skills and hope it doesn't bite us in the derriere. We seem to be pretty deep into what James Burk (of the 70's TV science series "Connections") called the technology trap.

Malcom's post: "When Automation goes Awry" doesn't make me feel any better about it. The faulted system is Lockeed's also.

 

[DEFCON]

The F - 35 will be a wonderful single engine aircraft ... someday, but for the foreseeable future, it'll remain a technology demonstrator and test bed.

Many have addressed the obvious comparative weakness of Hornets and the European offerings should they ever have to go up against the F 35 when it becomes technologically reliable and fully operational, but unless the US and its allies become our enemies, were are not going to need to be all that stealthy if Canada is called upon to participate in an action.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's highly unlikely that Canada will ever come to prosecute a war on its own; I think we can expect to continue on as we do now In support roles. As such, we'll serve as a tiny adjunct within the larger collective, so why spend the extra money on technology we'll never need?   

Edited September 7, 2016 by DEFCON

[boestar]

Defcon:

I agree to a point.  While we do serve as partners within NATO and currently rely heavily on the US for support.  I believe that any partner within a body like NATO should also be able to stand on its own.  We may as well just merge the USAF and the RCAF into a general training pool and utilize the greater arsenal available if we are to be nothing more than a supporter of the US.

Canada is a Sovereign Nation and should act as such.  We should be able to (whether we do or not is another matter) stand on our own from the ground up if required.  That way we are a strong part of a coalition and not just a supporter..

If we adopt a technologically advanced fighter with the electronic battlefield awareness systems like the F-35 then we should also invest in the Command and control systems that go with it (AWACS) as well as the ground based infantry systems and the Sea based systems as well.  That way the entire theater of war is covered and compatible with other countries. Communication, Command and Control of all branches of the forces not just a few jets in the sky.

The problem with the above is that the cost would skyrocket adopting all of these systems.

In the end (if we are not going to prosecute our own war) do we NEED it all?

 

[mo32a]

^We are not going to, nor are we able to, prosecute our own war. And we never will be. No government in Canada is going to spend the money required to bring our forces up to fighting strength in order to do so. If there is ever another WW we will scramble and do our part, but unless that happens we will dither along spending our tax dollars on feel good items that do us no practical good at all.

[DEFCON]

No argument Boestar, but there's a spoiler that comes with the purchase of the F-35; importing air forces aren't given the software etc. that makes the aircraft 'special', so it looks like we'd be agreeing to purchase pseudo F-35's that won't ever be capable of living up to the marketing hype.

[Guest]

Following is a very interesting article re who can and can not modify the aircraft and indeed who can service the aircraft. If the article is correct does that mean the RCAF would not be able to service the aircraft?  

AUTHOR: ERIC ADAMS. ERIC ADAMS    TRANSPORTATION  DATE OF PUBLICATION: 05.10.16.  https://www.wired.com/2016/05/israel-can-customize-americas-f-35-least-now/
05.10.16
 TIME OF PUBLICATION: 1:01 PM.
1:01 PM
WHY ONLY ISRAEL CAN CUSTOMIZE AMERICA’S F-35 (AT LEAST FOR NOW)
ANY BIG-TICKET MILITARY technology purchased from the US comes with rules. Big stacks of strict guidelines outline exactly what allies can do to the hardware and the systems that run it. Generally, it comes down to: nothing. No modifications, no additions, no deletions. You can’t even make repairs without written consent from the Pentagon.

Uncle Sam typically responds to such requests with a resounding no, especially when the hardware in question is the wildly advanced (and wildly over budget) F-35 Lightning II Joint Striker Fighter. The stealth fighter jet, which Lockheed Martin is selling to US allies, comes with caveats that expressly prohibit unauthorized tinkering and a requirement that only US-run facilities service the plane. These rules, designed to protect deeply intertwined systems and maintain the security of sensitive technology, are non-negotiable.

Unless you are Israel.
Israel will be the first ally to receive the aircraft when its deliveries begin in December, and it will for the foreseeable future be the only country allowed to install customized software and weapons. The software is an app-like “command and control” system used elsewhere in the Israeli Air Force’s fleet; the weapons would initially be an Israeli-built missile system. The US will most likely also let the Israeli Air Force service the jets independently.

The negotiations are still ongoing within Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office, which grants such approvals. Final decisions are expected this year. One reason Israel gets a pass is because of its technological track record, particularly with US weaponry. Israel’s Air Force has long tweaked F-16s and F-15 to integrate its own systems.

Israel is quite adept at building advanced military technologies, from weapons systems to sensors to communications gear, and sells a lot of it to the US. Israel’s Litening precision targeting system—an external pod that uses infrared imaging and laser range-finding to guide bombs to targets—is used in a variety of US Air Force and Navy aircraft. The sophisticated Joint Helmet-Mounted Display system for F-22 fighter pilots leans heavily on Israeli technology.

But an even bigger part of the explanation has to do with Israel’s state of perpetual conflict, which makes it a different sort of ally for the US. Speaking at a conference last month in Tel Aviv, as Defense News reported, Israeli Air Force chief of staff Brigadier General Tal Kalman suggested Israel’s “unique requirements” justify a degree of autonomy with the F-35. Israel is pursuing its own maintenance center at Nevatim Air Base, where the jets will be based. When you might go to war at any moment, the argument goes, you can’t have your best hardware go out of service for weeks at a time for checkouts that can take just a few days on your own turf.

Israel receives about 55 percent of the State Department’s Foreign Military Financing budget, according to Defense News. A new agreement currently being negotiated could see $40 billion go to support Israel’s military needs over the next 10 years—a number that Israel currently thinks is inadequate, given how much technological advancement its regional adversaries, primarily Iran, have recently clocked.

From that perspective, what helps Israel helps the United States–and the F-35 will give Israel an overall airpower advantage that could last decades. But system security remains a key concern for the US. It helps that the key piece of software Israel is adding to the F-35I (its official designation) won’t affect the airplane’s own software. It’s a free-standing, add-on app for what’s known as C4 systems—command, control, communications and computing. The app draws data streams from the F-35’s own open-architecture operating system in order to provide additional functionality. According to Benni Cohen, a general manager at Israel Aerospace Industries, the state-owned military technology developer that’s creating the new app, it gives the air force an easy tool for adapting the F-35 to its own needs. “[Our] open-system architecture enables rapid software and hardware development cycles that will also provide more affordable modernization and support of systems over the platform’s life cycle,” Cohen said.

It will also allow easy integration with the current systems used by the Israeli Air Force, including those within the force’s existing F-16 and F-15 fighters, Cohen added. Variations of the same software slated for the F-35 already exist in those fighters imported from the United States. The F-35 will effectively “play nice” with the IAF’s current resources.

The other nations buying the F-35—the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, and Denmark—have spent years negotiating how much they’ll be allowed to tinker with the jet. None have had the success that Israel appears to be achieving. Beyond the app integration—which may actually inspire other program partners and customers to pursue similar tactics, according to Aviation Week & Space Technology—Israel will likely also add its Spice 1000 precision missile system, among other possible weapons, along with so-called conformal fuel tanks, which mount above the wings and close to the fuselage, to the fighter. Though they could extend the fighter’s range by up to 40 percent, those tanks will likely compromise the jet’s stealth capability.

The US is working with Israel to ensure that all their proposed systems will work harmoniously with the F-35’s native systems, and that its proposed maintenance facility at Nevatim air base will be adequately secure. When the jets start arriving later this year, Israel intends to make then fully combat-ready within just 12 months.

[dagger]

Another glitch

Badly insulated fuel tanks?

Edited September 16, 2016 by dagger

[deicer]

http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/09/pentagon-requests-500-gold-plated-f-35s/

[DEFCON]

And they would have us believe the technology demonstrator is operationally ready' eh?

[J.O.]

Typically, the quoted news story missed a key point. The insulation is not in the fuel tanks. There are avionics cooling lines that are routed through the fuel tanks. The faulty insulation is inside those lines. Not all aircraft have the faulty lines installed. They came from one subcontractor, more than one is supplying the cooling lines. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/16/politics/us-air-force-grounds-f-35/

 

[DEFCON]

Well, that 'sounds' a little better, the fix will be apparently easier than if the problem were with fuel tank insulation.

[deicer]

Fire problems?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/fire-damages-f-35a-during-mountain-home-deployment-429673/

[bluemic]

I don't like to get involved in issues like the F35 since anything I write has ZERO effect on what the politicos will eventually do or not do, plus it's a polarizing argument that probably isn't worth the bandwith on this site.  However, fwiw a retired Air Force senior officer recently pointed me in the direction of Richard Shimooka and a paper Shimooka did for the CDA Institute entitled "The Fourth Dimension: The F-35 Program, Defence Procurement, and the Conservative Government, 2006-2015". 

 

The Fourth Dimension: The [Canadian] F-35 Program, Defence Procurement, and the Conservative Government, 2006-2015 [Richard Shimooka / CDA Institute]

 

It's an interesting - if lengthy - look at the subject, worth the read IMO, but if one finds it too long - or suffers from an attention-span disorder - the link below is something of the Cole's Notes version:

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/richard-shimooka-the-f-35-is-still-our-best-bet

 

Another (short) paper of interest is at:

 

http://thevimyreport.com/2016/07/f-35-four-fallacies-skew-public-discussion/

 

But one thing that made me sit up and pay attention (when I was listening to the retired senior officer) was a statement he made.  He said that he is aware that the US has already told Canada (Trudeau) that should we opt not to buy the F35, the USAF will arbitrarily deploy F35s to Canadian bases (i.e. whether we like it or not) under the auspices of the NORAD agreement to defend the continent.  Interesting....

 

Apologies if any of these links have been posted before.

 

mic

[Innuendo]

Interesting, can I take a guess as to who the retired senior officer is?

First choice would be General Jack Ripper, then in no particular order:

General Buck Turgidson, Col. "Bat" Guano and lastly Major "King" Kong.

 

Is there a prize if I am right?   

Edited September 26, 2016 by Innuendo

[boestar]

Fire caused by the bladed rubbing on the Abradable strip?  That doesnt pass the sniff test.  that is what the strip is for.

 

[deicer]

What if the abradable strip was abraded away? 

[boestar]

The there would have been significant issues with the disc.

 

[Guest]

Watch As F-35B Nails Vertical Landings Aboard USS America

Nov 21, 2016Lara Seligman  | AviationWeek.com

As the U.S. Marine Corps prepares to deploy the F-35B to Iwakuni, Japan, in January, pilots put the fifth-generation fighter to the test in a carrier proof of concept demonstration aboard the USS America Nov. 18-20. Sailors and Marines loaded the large-deck amphibious assault ship with 12 F-35Bs – the most F-35s aboard a ship, ever – two MV-22B Ospreys, one UH-1Y Venom and one AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters for the three-day exercise off the coast of San Diego, California.

The goal of the demonstration, which included pilot carrier qualifications and a simulated strike operation, is to explore the best ways to integrate a large package of F-35Bs into the Navy-Marine Corps construct, according to officials aboard the ship. Aviation Week hitched a ride on an Osprey to watch the F-35B in action Nov. 19. 

 

[conehead]

That's cool, but NOT what Canada needs.