• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

F-35 facts?

Ivan said:
Having done a fair amount of reading but not being involved in the program, it appears to me that the best summary of the F-35 is that it is a very mediocre airframe with lots of really cool technology and some beyond state-of-the-art weapons systems.

Is this a fair assessment?
- Ivan.
Click to expand...

No, the source of that information seems plentiful but cannot be proven as factual. When you press anyone for what they mean by the F-35 airframe being weak or poorly made, you can never get a straight answer. The fact is that the original source of that information was referring to original internal structure issues which were of concern some time ago(and correctly state was a manufacturing process issue, not a design flaw) . The problem was rectified long ago but somehow this story continues to find its way around net and news circles as it is new news every couple of months. What most forget about fighter airframes is that due to the inherent stresses inflicted upon them(even nominally), they wear out much faster than other airframes. Enter them onto aircraft carriers, double the already accelerated wear and corrosion rates. The more the fighter ages and builds hours, the more technical order and inspections follow. Here in my state and city, US Marine AV-8B's are weekly visitors every Thursday and Friday to our local airfield where they stay overnight. When they leave Cherry Point for routine training, regardless of distance or hours flown, when they return to base the aircraft go through a mandatory invasive inspection equivalent to a 100 hour inspection or even annual so the crews stay out on their flight assignment away from base from 1 to 2 days flying multi-leg flights prior to the inspections. Since this inspection process has been carrier out, the accident/mishap rate for our Harriers has dropped dramatically but then again, the airframes and components are aging and thus the cost for maintaining them is going up sharply.
 
Ferry_vO said:
Our government bought a high speed train in Italy, which was a cheap upgraded version of a lower speed train, and once winter came the trains quite litteraly fell to pieces. Then we bought the NH-90 for our navy, and after a long period of solving problems, we found quite soon after taking it into service that the thing will start to rust when in contact with salt water. So I have no reason to doubt our goverment's judgement when it comes to buying a replacement for our F-16, especially now that the same company that built the train and helicopter wants to build the F-35 here in Europe.. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Don't worry my friend. Before the first F-35 will be delivered, the last Dutch military airfield will long be closed and we will most probably sell "our" F-35s cheap to Portugal :biggrin-new:

Cheers,
Huub
 
huub vink said:
Don't worry my friend. Before the first F-35 will be delivered, the last Dutch military airfield will long be closed and we will most probably sell "our" F-35s cheap to Portugal
Click to expand...

Yep... Before ww2 broke out we had more tanks (One to be precise..) and airfields than we have right now....
 
StormILM said:
When you press anyone for what they mean by the F-35 airframe being weak or poorly made, you can never get a straight answer. QUOTE]

Weeeell, I'd question whether a carrier-borne bomb truck that couldn't even catch a hook was well made (and that was a design flaw). Straight enough answer for you?

I'm ducking out of this debate, as I suspect it could get heated and do nobody any favours.
Click to expand...
 
[/QUOTE]Weeeell, I'd question whether a carrier-borne bomb truck that couldn't even catch a hook was well made (and that was a design flaw). Straight enough answer for you?

I'm ducking out of this debate, as I suspect it could get heated and do nobody any favours.[/QUOTE]

I suppose you're referring to this design flaw:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POHXQzpKRdk

I recall the news story posted here and other places about the F-35C not being able to catch a a wire during arrestment due to the geometry of the hook being so close to the main gear coupled with the AoA requirement needed for the F-35C carrier approach. The story was related to "observer concerns" from a handful of aeronautical engineers who made what appeared to be a valid concern but as you can see in the above video, this was proven to be non-sense. Many conventional carrier aircraft have gone through hook design tweaking during the NATOPS testing phases and almost invariably, changes are made.

No intent whatsoever to heat up this discussion to anything mean spirited or to anger anyone but as I have often encountered, new stories can be and are often laced or flooded with inaccuracies and half-truths and the reasons for such can be unintentional to there often being an ulterior motive(which the latter is often the case with anything defense related within the press). That is why I never trust typical news sources on such matters and utilize my own knowledge and sources on the subject at hand. It gives me a much more realistic view of what is really going on beyond the misleading sources that so many accept.

BTW, I have literally small mountains of paper files on defense projects going back 40 plus years that show the stark separation between the reality of those project versus the thin surface facade often shown by simple press releases. Of that, there is a percentage of simpleton speak from the Defense manufacturers to bolster public support for said projects but a massive amount of material from press and political sources attacking the shortcomings of many projects which later turned out being some of the most successful designs in history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top