[IMG]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02456/strike_figher_2456264b.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE][URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9813125/Lightning-will-ground-F35-fighter-jet-known-as-the-Lightning-II.html"][B]The production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter – the world’s most sophisticated and expensive combat aircraft – has been derailed after engineers discovered that the jet’s fuel tank could explode if struck by lightning.[/B][/URL]
The disclosure is a major setback for the aircraft, also known as the Lightning II, which is due to enter service with both the RAF and the Royal Navy by 2018.
Attempts to increase fuel efficiency by reducing the jet’s weight have also made it more vulnerable to enemy attack than the generation of aircraft it was supposed to replace.
The damaging findings were disclosed in a Pentagon document which revealed that a fault within the JSF’s fuel tank could potentially lead to catastrophic explosion if the aircraft was struck by lightning in a thunderstorm.
The report from the Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation Office states that all test [B]flying within 25 miles of thunderstorms is “not permitted”[/B] until a device in the fuel tank which maintains correct oxygen levels is redesigned.
[B]The fear of an exploding fuel tank is just one of a series of problem to befall the F-35 programme. A design fault in the fuel tank has also prevented the JSF being able to rapidly descend to low altitude.[/B]
[B]The Pentagon report describes both failings as “unacceptable for combat or combat training”.[/B]
Examinations by the United States Air Force and the Lockheed Martin, the aircraft’s manufacturer, also discovered a handful of cracks in the tested aircraft, including on the right wing and right engine of the F-35A variant, and on another part of the F-35B variant.
“All of these discoveries will require mitigation plans and may include redesigning parts and additional weight,” the report added.
Britain is buying the F-35B – the short take-off and vertical landing version – as a replacement for the Harrier. The “multirole” plane will be used for air defence, ground attack and reconnaissance missions.
The F-35 has a top speed of 1,300mph and a range of 1,450 miles, while the Harrier could reach a speed of 700mph and had a range of 350 miles. The older aircraft also had no radar transparency or stealth capabilities, while the F-35 has both.
However the version being ordered by Britain is the is the heaviest, least capable and most expensive of the three versions of the plane, as it carries a lift fan propulsion system for its “jump jet” capability, which it needs to land on the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers.
The F-35 is also designed to be practically invisible to radar. Its shape has no right angles, which reflect radar waves, and a special “fibre” coating make it difficult to detect on any enemy radar.
Low heat emissions and an ability to carry armaments in an internal weapons bay instead of mounted on wings and underneath the fuselage further enhances its stealth capabilities.
The aircraft will carry a range of weapons including air-to-air rockets and satellite guided bombs.
Pilots are fitted with helmets which allow them to see 360 degrees, and displays all the data they need inside the visor.
The cockpit also features an all-glass digital instrument panel and a speech recognition system. Each aircraft has more than 24 million lines of “software code”.
In theory the F-35 should be able to fly into the enemy’s air space, attack it’s target and return safely to friendly territory without ever being detected.
But the F-35 has been dogged by criticism since its inception in the 1990s, particularly in the United States where it has gained unwelcome notoriety as the most expensive equipment project ever undertaken by the Pentagon.
Estimates suggest that the total cost of buying, operating and maintaining the planes over the next 30 years will be £625 billion – or $1 trillion.
Winslow Wheeler, at the US Center for Defense Information described the F-35 programme as a “gigantic performance disappointment”, which was not even as stealthy as the F-22 Raptor.
He added: “It’s the counterintuitive problem of paying a huge amount of money thinking you’re getting a Lamborghini or Ferrari: You’re not, you’re getting a Yugo (the cheap, mass-produced cars made in the former Yugoslavia).”
Though British pilots have already been involved in the test flying programme, they will not be flying the plane off UK bases or the two new aircraft carriers until 2018.
The US is spending around £254 billion to buy 2,500 F-35s for its navy, air force and marine corps. The previous government said the UK would buy 138 planes but Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, has so far committed to purchasing only 48.
The fuel tank problems are the second major blow to hit the programme in recent weeks. Last month Canada pulled out of a deal to buy 65 F-35s over fears that the aircraft could be too expensive to run.
Canada is not the only country to get cold feet. Italy reduced its purchase to 90 F-35s instead of the initial 131, while the US has delayed some of its purchases and may still trim the programme given its difficult fiscal situation.
An audit of the programme by KPMG revealed aircraft running costs could reach £28.4 billion over the next 42-years.
The final decision on the number Britain buys will be dependent on the future role of the Royal Navy’s two carriers and whether, as is expected, the unit price of each aircraft falls.
The future of the aircraft is also key to Britain’s defence industry and will help to sustain over 20,000 jobs.
Although the plane is being manufactured by Lockheed Martin, Britain is a major partner in the programme, with both BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce playing key roles in the production and design of the jet.
A spokesman for Lockheed Martin said: "“The F-35 is a stealth aircraft and by definition it is less vulnerable than any fourth generation fighter flying today. We don’t consider this a major issue. We have demonstrated very good vulnerability performance and we continue to work this with the Joint Programme Office.”[/QUOTE]
Fuel tank combustion won't have adverse affects on stealthiness right?
[QUOTE] Estimates suggest that the total cost of buying, operating and maintaining the planes over the next 30 years will be £625 billion – or $1 trillion.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
Winslow Wheeler, at the US Center for Defense Information described the F-35 programme as a “gigantic performance disappointment”, which was not even as stealthy as the F-22 Raptor.[/QUOTE]
So when congressmen are arguing about how we should cut government spending, has this ever come up? Do they know how expensive this fucking plane is?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39290454]So when congressmen are arguing about how we should cut government spending, has this ever come up? Do they know how expensive this fucking plane is?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but planes are cool so it's all good.
whats wrong with what the US Airforce has right now? A-10's, Apaches, a bunch of high tech gear that can bomb tanks for thousands of yards away.
Why do they need to spend up to $1 trillion dollars for planes when they're hardly used
Say what you want to about the price and reliability of the F-35, but damn does it look sexy.
The F-35 is like the poster child for how to not run a project, it seems to have a catastrophic fuck up at least once a month.
[QUOTE=SatansSin;39290494]whats wrong with what the US Airforce has right now? A-10's, Apaches, a bunch of high tech gear that can bomb tanks for thousands of yards away.
Why do they need to spend up to $1 trillion dollars for planes when they're hardly used[/QUOTE]
Military industrial complex, and straight up defense contractors giving unlimited corporate donations to government officials to represent their interests in Washington.
[editline]20th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=dogmachines;39290503]Say what you want to about the price and reliability of the F-35, but damn does it look sexy.[/QUOTE]
F-22 looks better, but I'm biased against single engine planes.
[QUOTE=SatansSin;39290494]whats wrong with what the US Airforce has right now? A-10's, Apaches, a bunch of high tech gear that can bomb tanks for thousands of yards away.
Why do they need to spend up to $1 trillion dollars for planes when they're hardly used[/QUOTE]
The only country on the planet that we could ever consider attacking without destroying ourselves at the same time due to international interconnectedness and mutually assured distruction, is North Korea.
And Best Korea still uses cold-war era military tech.
[editline]20th January 2013[/editline]
In other words we would roflstomp NK's armor and aircraft.
This one plane has so much goddamn fail attached to it.
The F-35 had so much potential. It's a great airframe, but they botched it so bad.
[QUOTE=SatansSin;39290494]whats wrong with what the US Airforce has right now? A-10's, Apaches, a bunch of high tech gear that can bomb tanks for thousands of yards away.
Why do they need to spend up to $1 trillion dollars for planes when they're hardly used[/QUOTE]
What the military needs and what the government wants to give them are two entirely different things.
[QUOTE=SatansSin;39290494]whats wrong with what the US Airforce has right now? A-10's, Apaches, a bunch of high tech gear that can bomb tanks for thousands of yards away.
Why do they need to spend up to $1 trillion dollars for planes when they're hardly used[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA[/media]
I hope to see an F-35 version of this in the near future.
See I don't even understand why the US needs this aircraft anymore, there's no enemy, ther never will be an enemy that's on par with the US for a long time, Russia can't do shit, it's still in a pretty shit way and it's navy is still literally rusty as fuck. China won't do shit because they already have the US by the balls due to debt and their manufacturing.
The only military threat to the US is Europe, and we're all good buddies and in NATO and shit so there is literally no need for the US to have a cutting edge fighter anymore, it's not like a bunch of pissed off terrorists are gonna suddenly show up with fighters, let alone generation 5 fighters.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39290563]See I don't even understand why the US needs this aircraft anymore, there's no enemy, ther never will be an enemy that's on par with the US for a long time, Russia can't do shit, it's still in a pretty shit way and it's navy is still literally rusty as fuck. China won't do shit because they already have the US by the balls due to debt and their manufacturing.
The only military threat to the US is Europe, and we're all good buddies and in NATO and shit so there is literally no need for the US to have a cutting edge fighter anymore, it's not like a bunch of pissed off terrorists are gonna suddenly show up with fighters, let alone generation 5 fighters.[/QUOTE]
Russia is evolving and modernizing fast, but anyone who thinks they're a potential enemy is stuck in the Cold War mentality. I don't think there will be a "fair" war in a long time. The idea of course is to make sure that a "fair war" doesn't happen in a long time by having such good equipment it deters potential threats from picking fights with you, but the F-35 is just too god damn expensive. It was supposed to be the F-22's cheaper little brother, and by now is almost triple the cost for worse performance and combat ability.
Panetta was actually asking NATO to have a role in the asia-pacific area earlier this week, I guess they forgot what NATO stood for. The only potential for war between decent countries and not African and/or middle eastern shitholes is the Asia-Pacific and by a long stretch Georgia.
[QUOTE=teh pirate;39290580]Russia is evolving and modernizing fast, but anyone who thinks they're a potential enemy is stuck in the Cold War mentality. I don't think there will be a "fair" war in a long time. The idea of course is to make sure that a "fair war" doesn't happen in a long time by having such good equipment it deters potential threats from picking fights with you, but the F-35 is just too god damn expensive. It was supposed to be the F-22's cheaper little brother, and by now is almost triple the cost for worse performance and combat ability.[/QUOTE]
The worst part about this project, really, is the fact that the US is now neck deep in it's shit with fuck all to show for it, so you either pull out of it after sinking around a trillion dollars into it with some advances in VTOL and avionics to show for it, or just keep plugging away and end up with a hyper expensive fighter that cannot possibly deliver its moneys worth.
It's a really really shit place to be.
[editline]20th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=laserguided;39290627]Panetta was actually asking NATO to have a role in the asia-pacific area earlier this week, I guess they forgot what NATO stood for. The only potential for war between decent countries and not African and/or middle eastern shitholes is the Asia-Pacific and by a long stretch Georgia.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, so for the foreseeable future there is no adversary that would be capable of matching America or Europe. Really the only country that could really put a fight is China, but it would take some catastrophic disaster for even that to happen.
China still operates 6,000 T-55's.
[QUOTE=SatansSin;39290494]whats wrong with what the US Airforce has right now? A-10's, Apaches, a bunch of high tech gear that can bomb tanks for thousands of yards away.
Why do they need to spend up to $1 trillion dollars for planes when they're hardly used[/QUOTE]
Just a note, the Army is the only service with Apaches. Anyways, I am rather angry about the F-35 project. They keep it afloat by cutting the Army a ton, due to the AF, Marines, and Navy being the future users of this thing. I wish they would just scrap the project and just focus on making newer upgrades for the aircraft we have. The helicopter I maintain, the OH-58D, is over sixty years old, and still keeps on going and completing missions very effectively, for an extremely cheap price. The F-35 project is a complete waste of time and money.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;39290787]Just a note, the Army is the only service with Apaches. Anyways, I am rather angry about the F-35 project. They keep it afloat by cutting the Army a ton, due to the AF, Marines, and Navy being the future users of this thing. I wish they would just scrap the project and just focus on making newer upgrades for the aircraft we have. The helicopter I maintain, the OH-58D, is over sixty years old, and still keeps on going and completing missions very effectively, for an extremely cheap price. The F-35 project is a complete waste of time and money.[/QUOTE]
But what about rich millioneres over at Lockheed? I don't think you're thinking of everybodies needs here.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;39290787]Just a note, the Army is the only service with Apaches. Anyways, I am rather angry about the F-35 project. They keep it afloat by cutting the Army a ton, due to the AF, Marines, and Navy being the future users of this thing. I wish they would just scrap the project and just focus on making newer upgrades for the aircraft we have. The helicopter I maintain, the OH-58D, is over sixty years old, and still keeps on going and completing missions very effectively, for an extremely cheap price. The F-35 project is a complete waste of time and money.[/QUOTE]
I was not aware that the year somehow leaped from 2012 to 2029
[QUOTE=SKEEA;39290787]Just a note, the Army is the only service with Apaches. Anyways, I am rather angry about the F-35 project. They keep it afloat by cutting the Army a ton, due to the AF, Marines, and Navy being the future users of this thing. I wish they would just scrap the project and just focus on making newer upgrades for the aircraft we have. The helicopter I maintain, the OH-58D, is over sixty years old, and still keeps on going and completing missions very effectively, for an extremely cheap price. The F-35 project is a complete waste of time and money.[/QUOTE]
Is your specific Kiowa that old, or are you referring to the design? I've always wondered how long they continually use singular aircraft.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;39290562][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA[/media]
I hope to see an F-35 version of this in the near future.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://cache.jezebel.com/assets/images/7/2008/11/CryingEagle-Flag640.jpg[/img]
Stuff like this makes me proud to be an American
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39290519]Military industrial complex, and straight up defense contractors giving unlimited corporate donations to government officials to represent their interests in Washington.
[editline]20th January 2013[/editline]
F-22 looks better, but I'm biased against single engine planes.[/QUOTE]
Yeah and the F-22 is also an air-superiority fighter as opposed to a multirole aircraft. Admittedly it's fairly sad that the US army cannot use fixed wing aircraft. It wold probably be far more able to work the a-10 and similar ground support aircraft into it's doctrine, add stuff like halo lights and much more. But the US has a weird branch differentiation.
I still don't fully understand why the army is called the army as opposed to groundforce. Or landforce. I guess it's an odd view due to being from a landlocked nation where the army and military are synonymous terms.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;39290873]Yeah and the F-22 is also an air-superiority fighter as opposed to a multirole aircraft. Admittedly it's fairly sad that the US army cannot use fixed wing aircraft. It wold probably be far more able to work the a-10 and similar ground support aircraft into it's doctrine, add stuff like halo lights and much more. But the US has a weird branch differentiation.
I still don't fully understand why the army is called the army as opposed to groundforce. Or landforce. I guess it's an odd view due to being from a landlocked nation where the army and military are synonymous terms.[/QUOTE]
The F-22 is designed as an air superiority fighter but it has multirole capabilities.
[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;39290826]I was not aware that the year somehow leaped from 2012 to 2029[/QUOTE]
I may have exaggerated a little. The Kiowa specifically is around 50 years old.
[editline]20th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=teh pirate;39290828]Is your specific Kiowa that old, or are you referring to the design? I've always wondered how long they continually use singular aircraft.[/QUOTE]
The true age of the aircraft is in the chin bubble serial number plate. In my squadron, a few are from the sixties, some seventies. The thing is very old, just upgraded every now and again. We still make mission, so it is just the gift that keeps on giving.
[editline]20th January 2013[/editline]
My point is, with these old aircraft we have accomplished a lot, and they are still very capable. The F-35 has no reason to currently exist.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;39290503]Say what you want to about the price and reliability of the F-35, but damn does it look sexy.[/QUOTE]
So does my Concrete [url=http://mobile.businessinsider.com/check-out-these-ridiculously-expensive-everyday-items-2011-11/concrete-aalto-doorstop-3500-8]AALTO door stop.[/url] You don't mind that I took out of your hard working Taxes to purchase about 1,500 of them right? It's only Five and a quarter million in the end..
Oh and by the way, it could stub your toe and be a huge pain in the ass while its holding the door open, so we're going to invest another 1,500 per unit to redesign the plan and update any existing models.
The economy is collapsing. But you'll all have wonderful concrete doorstops! So everything is O.K.
In my opinion, it is the same thing. The jet is overly expensive and is wasting money. We don't need this super advanced aircraft when we have plenty of them already. Update the existing avionics and equipment aboard the fleets we have now, instead of redesigning a prototype that continues to let down and create problems both with functionality and budget.
BUT i'm not Uncle Sam. I'm sure he knows what he is doing...
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;39290562][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA[/media]
I hope to see an F-35 version of this in the near future.[/QUOTE]
it makes me laugh how much the f35 has turned out to be a bradley. you can almost imagine the generals sat around looking at the aircraft and saying "hey. wouldn't it be great if this plane could do [i]everything at once[/i]! let's make it happen!"
wow this plane really can't catch a break
How is this even possible? Like I read most of the article and it doesn't actually explain. I had always thought aircraft's were pretty safe in lightning. I read the title assuming it was another case of the stealth breaking in certain conditions but wow.
I still believe the UK should have gone after the F/A-18 instead. I have this feeling this is going to end up like the F22, technically very good but way too to expensive to actually deploy properly.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39290454]So when congressmen are arguing about how we should cut government spending, has this ever come up? Do they know how expensive this fucking plane is?[/QUOTE]
Because the F-35 is produced in as many states as possible, so they won't shut it down and cause job losses.
[editline]20th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39290509]The F-35 is like the poster child for how to not run a project, it seems to have a catastrophic fuck up at least once a month.[/QUOTE]
P-51 Mustang: 149 days between prototyping and first flight, entered service 2 years later
F-35 Lightning: Just shy of 5 years from design to first flight, 12 years and counting until entering service
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
