• Leaked pentagon report finds more crucial F-35 design flaws
    25 replies, posted
[QUOTE]The Conservative government should exclude the F-35 from its search for replacements for Canada's CF-18 jets after a leaked Pentagon report found more flaws with the stealth fighter, opposition critics say. An evaluation criticizes the visibility in the cockpit of the multi-role fighter, and contains blunt comments from test pilots that suggest the shortcomings could get planes shot down in combat. The design prevents pilots from looking behind them. "The head rest is too large and will impede aft [rear] visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements," one test pilot was quoted as saying in the U.S. Defence Department's directorate of operational test and evaluation report. A second pilot reportedly said visibility is crucial and any disruption "will get the pilot gunned" down in dogfights. The document was leaked and posted online Wednesday. Helmet also a problem Pilots have also cited concerns about the sophisticated helmet that's supposed to display data, saying there are flickering and non-existent readings. Vocal critics, such as aviation expert Winslow Wheeler, say the F-35 is not ready for combat training, let alone combat. Both the New Democrat and Liberal defence critics say the stealth fighter should be dropped from consideration. A spokeswoman for Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose accused the Opposition of playing politics. Michelle Bakos said it's "shameful that the opposition is trying to undermine the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat." The Harper government has asked a panel of independent experts to ovesee an evaluation of all the options on the market to replace the 1980s vintage CF-18 fighters to ensure the process is rigourous and fair. Once the evaluation is complete, the government will decide whether it will hold a full-fledged competition.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/03/06/f35-report-leaked.html[/url]
This just keeps getting better, doesn't it?
just remove the headrest sheesh pilots shouldnt be resting anyways
We need to just can this thing entirely. It's horribly broken and will cost more to fix than it would to design three more jets to do the various things it's supposed to jack-of-all-trades.
[QUOTE=DrKinkyKinkles;39833250]just remove the headrest sheesh pilots shouldnt be resting anyways[/QUOTE] I doubt fixing the headrest will solve all the major design flaws the fighter already contains.
[QUOTE=TestECull;39833256]We need to just can this thing entirely. It's horribly broken and will cost more to fix than it would to design three more jets to do the various things it's supposed to jack-of-all-trades.[/QUOTE] But then the pentagon and lockheed martin would look bad can't let that happen.
Canning the F-35 at this point would be like the TSR-2 farce on a much larger scale. No, the project must be finished and some aircraft delivered, but I'd like to see LM's balls chopped right off and minimal acquisition take place. It's going to be bloody useless.
God, this is ending up like the SR-71. Looks cool as shit, can do awesome things, but has so many fucking flaws and costs so much damn money to upkeep/fix it's just not worth it.
If you guys want F-22's, we have a bunch of those that we're not using.
[QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;39833427]God, this is ending up like the SR-71. Looks cool as shit, can do awesome things, but has so many fucking flaws and costs so much damn money to upkeep/fix it's just not worth it.[/QUOTE] That's what you get when you cram a shitload of features into a shitty project to inflate costs so you can dupe a country into buying a second rate product at the biggest profit margin possible.
[QUOTE=MarstunoM;39833468]If you guys want F-22's, we have a bunch of those that we're not using.[/QUOTE] They would have to do some expensive modifications to the engines to be able to run on refined maple syrup unfortunately.
There's no way in hell a project so expensive and so flawed, one that practically scammed our government, should not have been cancelled by this point. I don't like buzz phrases, but I'm tempted to call MIC on this whole program.
[quote]"The head rest is too large and will impede aft [rear] visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements," one test pilot was quoted as saying in the U.S. Defence Department's directorate of operational test and evaluation report. A second pilot reportedly said visibility is crucial and any disruption "will get the pilot gunned" down in dogfights.[/quote] I thought the F-35 wasn't meant for dogfighting. It either (a) shot all its missiles from farther away than any other jet and called it a day or (b) dropped its bombs before the ground targets even know it's there. Doesn't mean this whole project isn't the one of the largest military money-sinks of our time though.
billions well spent. we should gift north korea the f35 program as "an act of kindness" in reality they'll shoot themselves after trying to start the god damn thing
[QUOTE=Clavus;39833616]I thought the F-35 wasn't meant for dogfighting. It either (a) shot all its missiles from farther away than any other jet and called it a day or (b) dropped its bombs before the ground targets even know it's there. Doesn't mean this whole project isn't the one of the largest military money-sinks of our time though.[/QUOTE] I guess they consider it important.
who cares ship it anyway this is america god dammit
[QUOTE=DrKinkyKinkles;39833250]just remove the headrest sheesh pilots shouldnt be resting anyways[/QUOTE] You realise that removing the headrest would probably almost decapitate pilots if they eject?
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;39833820]You realise that removing the headrest would probably almost decapitate pilots if they eject?[/QUOTE] I don't know. With how many features the thing is supposed to have it seems like being indestructible and impossible to crash would be pretty minor additions at this point. Who actually needs to eject? That's for planes that aren't safe.
[QUOTE=Clavus;39833616]I thought the F-35 wasn't meant for dogfighting. It either (a) shot all its missiles from farther away than any other jet and called it a day or (b) dropped its bombs before the ground targets even know it's there. Doesn't mean this whole project isn't the one of the largest military money-sinks of our time though.[/QUOTE] For all we know it could be bad reporting on the part of the investigative agencies or media. Test pilots are expected to report any and all issues, not just ones directly related to a plane's intended role. If it has visibility problems that would harm it in a dogfight, they report them, whether or not a dogfight is a realistic combat scenario in the first place.
Oh jesus fuck, this is just setting new levels for "American quality" :v:
[QUOTE=zakedodead;39833271]But then the pentagon and lockheed martin would look bad can't let that happen.[/QUOTE] And having spent nearly half a trillion on a broken aircraft that can be out-done by a Cessna 172 on the basis that the Cessna actually fucking flies [i]doesn't[/i]?
[QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;39833427]God, this is ending up like the SR-71. Looks cool as shit, can do awesome things, but has so many fucking flaws and costs so much damn money to upkeep/fix it's just not worth it.[/QUOTE] At least the SR-71 actually flew missions, about 12 were lost to mechanical failures, but some of them flew 2000+ hours at mach 3, I cant imagine the stress that puts on the aircraft and caused problems that they didn't think of.
Since the first fighter jets, cockpits that allow a pilot to see behind them have been a vital component. Not having that on a modern aircraft is simply embarrassing. Canada, why are we even considering these pieces of shit?
Wait really? The head rest is too big and there are bugs in the helmet display? This is why you have test pilots. So they can go "hey fix this" and they do. If that is honestly the worst they have to say about the aircraft, then the F-35 is a much better aircraft than I had assumed. I was expecting poor low speed performance or major complaints about climb speed. Stuff that the basic design of the aircraft would cause. This is easy stuff. Wow. Still an overpriced program and Canada should stick with F-18 variants though.
The fun never stops, eh?
Why not just use A10s for everything? I mean seriously BBBBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT How could anyone say no to that?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.