F-35 test pilot results. Doesn't look promising

Clark1961 said:
Total miss on the Cobra and Huey, but hey, "Whatever" you say it is.
Click to expand...

I saw the Huey (XH-48) but didn't see the Cobra. Cobra was never an important aircraft in the military so.....
 
Clark1961 said:
Total miss on the Cobra and Huey, but hey, "Whatever" you say it is.
Click to expand...

Hey, "whatever" you want, I'll go get it for you. "Whatever"

Helicopter
Sequence Name Manufacturer Image First flight Notes/Notable Variants
H-1 Iroquois Iroquois
Huey
Bell Helicopter Bell UH-1A Iroquois in flight.jpg 22 October 1956 Formerly H-40
Formerly HU-1
UH-1N Twin Huey
UH-1Y Venom
H-1 Cobra Cobra
SeaCobra
SuperCobra
Viper Bell Helicopter Ah1-228-070719-02cr-16.jpg Formerly
AH-1 Cobra
AH-1 SuperCobra
AH-1Z Viper
H-2 Seasprite Seasprite Kaman Aircraft Kaman Sh-2G.jpg 2 July 1959 Formerly HU2K
SH-2G Super Seasprite
H-3 Sea King Sea King
"Jolly Green Giant" Sikorsky Aircraft UH-3H Sea King.jpg 11 March 1959 Formerly HSS-2
CH-/HH-3 Sea King
H-4 Bell Helicopter Oh4a002.jpg 8 December 1962 Formerly HO-4
H-5 Fairchild Hiller Oh5a001.jpg 21 January 1963 Formerly HO-5
H-6 Cayuse Cayuse
Little Bird Hughes Helicopters
McDonnell Douglas
Boeing Helicopters US Army OH-6A Cayuse.jpg 27 February 1963 Formerly HO-6
MH-6 Little Bird
AH-6
 
Now that's a helicopter list! Got the Little Bird and everything.:yes:
 
You have the MH stallion's and forgot the MH Chinooks?!

C'mon! I for one, am offended!

(But that's a pretty good list!)
 
Flymy47 said:
You have the MH stallion's and forgot the MH Chinooks?!

C'mon! I for one, am offended!

(But that's a pretty good list!)
Click to expand...

He's got an H-47 on the list. That's good enough. Besides, the only MH that's matters is followed by the numbers 6 and 0.
 
Ummm, no!

And for the record there ain't no MH six zero (emphasis on the zero) on there either!
 
Meh, six pax and all that...

Geesh, are you a closet MELB guy or something?!

I do have to admit: my "initial" helicopter ride was in an H369HS, so I AM biased to the type...

...But the Chinook has carried my soul for close to 4K hours of "semi" safe flight.
 
SbestCFII said:
Not really. it's a joint strike fighter for inter-service use...like the F4 was back in the 60's. The F-22 is an air superiority fighter. The F-35 is massively expensive to produce. The military is using planes like this to bridge gaps between fighters and attack aircraft, replacing proven platforms like the F16, A10, F15E, etc. Of course, vastly more money is spent in developing and producing this new and "better" aircraft, than would be needed to improve on our current designs. So hundred of billions are being spent on this "do it all" plane that might eventually be able (or not) to do the job. Regardless of whether it works out or not, someone's congressional districts get some jobs and the developing corporations get our billions of tax-payer dollars.
Click to expand...

When you look at the price for a new Super Hornet or Block 60 F-16 current F-35 costs are similar, and production isn't even to the point where costs have been driven down as far as the can be. Same thing for foreign designs like the Rafale and Eurofighter.

One thing that isn't arguable is that the actual physical airframes being operated right now need to be replaced. They have too many hours on them and SLEPing them indefinitely isn't the answer.

So the question is do you want to replace them with with new production legacy aircraft and accept the constraints associated with their design or do you want a new platform - F-35. F-35 is going to be an increase in capability and the cost is more or less the same as what new production legacy aircraft would be.

You have to pay up regardless of which option you choose.
 
Last edited:
A lot of these arguments have been made before, at the start of other ultimately successful programs. Not exact parallels, but think about the F/A-18......"doesn't have enough gas/legs", "can't carry enough ordnance", "too much tasking for one pilot", etc etc. The Navy didn't initially want it, lest it interfere with further F-14 orders. Marines weren't sold either, and literally had guys at Miramar ready to class up into the F-14 RAG before they pulled the plug on the USMC Tomcat program and bought the F/A-18. Similar story with the USAF for both the F-16 (again, didn't want to lose further F-15 orders) and A-10 (not a fighter). I think we could agree that all these aircraft ended up being successes in their own rites, and constitute the backbone of our current "legacy" fleet. I personally don't think the F-35 is a waste, and I do think, from an operational perspective, that it is an important advancement. But even if I didn't, a lot of these growing pains are very common to new programs (think F-111 or B-1).
 
turbofan said:
So the question is do you want to replace them with with new production legacy aircraft and accept the constraints associated with their design or do you want a new platform - F-35. F-35 is going to be an increase in capability and the cost is more or less the same as what new production legacy aircraft would be.



You have to pay up regardless of which option you choose.
Click to expand...

Some good points, but what you describe is exactly the problem with briefing/selling these programs to flag officers on power-point.

When you cherry pick numbers and use smoke and mirrors in you estimations, you can make it look like the JSF will ultimately be cheaper than an updated legacy model.

When they do get all the bugs worked out, I do believe it will end up costing significantly more than an updated legacy.

The same can be said for the electro-magnetic catapult. It briefed well under the guise of 'it will cost less in the long run'. Right now, I'm not so sure that will hold true.
 
Is the Harrier as miserable to work on as other British designs? The ones I've worked you need a 100 drill bits just to get the panels off. You need a special tool for just about everything for example a slide hammer that threads into aileron hinge bolts. None of the drilled bolts come drilled meaning you must install correct washer stack, torque then drill the cotter pin holes. Don't mix up bolts, washers and nuts when removing stuff because it can take hours to figure out which goes where.
 
bnt83 said:
Is the Harrier as miserable to work on as other British designs? The ones I've worked you need a 100 drill bits just to get the panels off. You need a special tool for just about everything for example a slide hammer that threads into aileron hinge bolts. None of the drilled bolts come drilled meaning you must install correct washer stack, torque then drill the cotter pin holes. Don't mix up bolts, washers and nuts when removing stuff because it can take hours to figure out which goes where.
Click to expand...

I've never heard anyone complain about it along those lines. The biggest issue is parts. A key reason we are still able to deploy Harriers is due to the Brits retiring theirs first and sharing the parts inventory. From my perspective, the operational availability of the existing airframes has actually gone up from what it was 15 years ago.

FWIW, there are already more F-35Bs manufactured than airworthy AV-8Bs.
 
Sorry I don't follow the F35 news too much. But why have an F35 when we have the F22 as a superiority fighter and the old but well used for the role A10s? I just don't see a jet like that providing close air support
 
bnt83 said:
Is the Harrier as miserable to work on as other British designs? The ones I've worked you need a 100 drill bits just to get the panels off. You need a special tool for just about everything for example a slide hammer that threads into aileron hinge bolts. None of the drilled bolts come drilled meaning you must install correct washer stack, torque then drill the cotter pin holes. Don't mix up bolts, washers and nuts when removing stuff because it can take hours to figure out which goes where.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the fairings on my old sport bike.

I've read that the Chinese stole the plans for the thing. Problem was, they couldn't make a ducted fan to allow it to take off vertically. So they didn't put one in. Because their knock-off doesn't have a ducted fan they couldn't make they made the fuselage thinner. Because the fuselage is thinner the thing has less drag, and thus can fly farther, higher, and has longer legs and more maneuverability than the original.

In the mean time Textron produced a $20 million jet fighter than can do much of what the F35 can do, and do almost everything we need a jet fighter to do in the CONUS. Of course the military isn't at all interested.
 
steingar said:
In the mean time Textron produced a $20 million jet fighter than can do much of what the F35 can do...
Click to expand...
Sure it can. Tell us a little about the weapons system in that Textron airplane. :rolleyes:

Nauga,
who knows you can't drop what you can't carry
 
The Scorpion and the F-35 are two very different aircraft. That's like comparing an OV-1 with and F-16 back in the day. One can supplement the other but a Scorpion can't replace a 35.

You need F-22s and F-35s for high threat high intensity combat. You need AT-29s and Scorpions for low threat low intensity combat.
 
nauga said:
Sure it can. Tell us a little about the weapons system in that Textron airplane. :rolleyes:

Nauga,
who knows you can't drop what you can't carry
Click to expand...

What's the ratio of airframe/power plant/avionics & weapons delivery, costs in one of these?
 
Velocity173 said:
You need AT-29s and Scorpions for low threat low intensity combat.
Click to expand...
If history is any indicator the Scorpion at IOC will be very different from the one with a $20M price tag today.

Nauga,
from E&MD
 
Velocity173 said:
The Scorpion and the F-35 are two very different aircraft. That's like comparing an OV-1 with and F-16 back in the day. One can supplement the other but a Scorpion can't replace a 35.

You need F-22s and F-35s for high threat high intensity combat. You need AT-29s and Scorpions for low threat low intensity combat.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but did we really need the F-35? The F-22 is a much better performing plane. Yes, we needed to replace the Harrier platform for the Marines, but is this really the best we could do at that?:dunno: I'm certainly not sure, but I suspect if the mission had been concentrated around a USMC design team, they would not have come up with the F-35 out of that power plant. Will a Marine in a CAS roll have the needs of the compromises that speed and stealth cost in loiter and weapons load carrying ability. A VTOL/STOVL Hog with a variable geometry folding wing is what the Marines need. They aren't sneaking in hot and fast to bomb distant inland targets, that's the Navy's and USAF's job. Marines basically fly in support of Marines on the ground, and doing so provide a formidable force.

I'm guessing that the AT-29 is the Air Tractor 802 based platform? Yeah, I'd give that to the enemy. The 802 is not pilot friendly airplane, it's taken several friends, one who happened to be Leland Snow's son-in-law that I went through Ag training with at Harold Miller's. Air Tractors in general require a lot of flying to make them work, you're rolling flaps in and out in every turn working a field. You have to pay very close attention to your state of energy or that plane will bite you in the ass and kill you. It might work in something akin to the old dive bombing rolls, but I would not want to have to fight with it.
 
nauga said:
If history is any indicator the Scorpion at IOC will be very different from the one with a $20M price tag today.

Nauga,
from E&MD
Click to expand...

No doubt. They're using that figure as a selling point along with that $3,000 per hour operating cost. I'm skeptical that they'll meet those numbers with the final version. :dunno:
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Fair enough, but did we really need the F-35? The F-22 is a much better performing plane. Yes, we needed to replace the Harrier platform for the Marines, but is this really the best we could do at that?:dunno: I'm certainly not sure, but I suspect if the mission had been concentrated around a USMC design team, they would not have come up with the F-35 out of that power plant. Will a Marine in a CAS roll have the needs of the compromises that speed and stealth cost in loiter and weapons load carrying ability. A VTOL/STOVL Hog with a variable geometry folding wing is what the Marines need. They aren't sneaking in hot and fast to bomb distant inland targets, that's the Navy's and USAF's job. Marines basically fly in support of Marines on the ground, and doing so provide a formidable force.

I'm guessing that the AT-29 is the Air Tractor 802 based platform? Yeah, I'd give that to the enemy. The 802 is not pilot friendly airplane, it's taken several friends, one who happened to be Leland Snow's son-in-law that I went through Ag training with at Harold Miller's. Air Tractors in general require a lot of flying to make them work, you're rolling flaps in and out in every turn working a field. You have to pay very close attention to your state of energy or that plane will bite you in the ass and kill you. It might work in something akin to the old dive bombing rolls, but I would not want to have to fight with it.
Click to expand...

Everything I've read from former Harrier pilots has been nothing but praise for the F-35. Faster, more payload, more range, easier to fly, etc.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ghter-simply-a-phenomenal-flying-machine.html

The AT-29 is an attack version of the Tucano. The AF chose it over the AT-6 for the light attack roll for Afghanistan. They're training Afghan pilots right now in it at Moody AFB Valdosta, GA.
 
Velocity173 said:
Everything I've read from former Harrier pilots has been nothing but praise for the F-35. Faster, more payload, more range, easier to fly, etc.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ghter-simply-a-phenomenal-flying-machine.html

The AT-29 is an attack version of the Tucano. The AF chose it over the AT-6 for the light attack roll for Afghanistan. They're training Afghan pilots right now in it at Moody AFB Valdosta, GA.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok, thanks, yeah, I remember the kerfufal over that contract a while back.

How is the F-35 on loiter?
 
Henning said:
Ah, ok, thanks, yeah, I remember the kerfufal over that contract a while back.

How is the F-35 on loiter?
Click to expand...

I'd say it's much better than the AV-8. That was always the Achilles Heel of the AV-8. Combat radius around 300 NM compared to 469 NM for the F-35. And the F-35 is carrying more with it. A lot of people don't realize this is a larger aircraft than a Harrier. Saw one at an air show a couple months ago with an AV-8. While this is an A and not a B, it's still pretty big.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 28
Last edited:
Henning said:
Fair enough, but did we really need the F-35? The F-22 is a much better performing plane. Yes, we needed to replace the Harrier platform for the Marines, but is this really the best we could do at that?:dunno: I'm certainly not sure, but I suspect if the mission had been concentrated around a USMC design team, they would not have come up with the F-35 out of that power plant. Will a Marine in a CAS roll have the needs of the compromises that speed and stealth cost in loiter and weapons load carrying ability. A VTOL/STOVL Hog with a variable geometry folding wing is what the Marines need. They aren't sneaking in hot and fast to bomb distant inland targets, that's the Navy's and USAF's job. Marines basically fly in support of Marines on the ground, and doing so provide a formidable force.
Click to expand...

CAS may be the USMC's bread and butter but to say that is basically what the TACAIR fleet does is at best a simplistic view of the world and at worst intentionally horrendously wrong.
 
Henning said:
A VTOL/STOVL Hog with a variable geometry folding wing is what the Marines need.
Click to expand...
Yeah, 'cause the F-35 isn't complex, heavy, and expensive enough. :rolleyes:

Nauga,
and sharks with lasers
 
Velocity173 said:
A lot of people don't realize this is a larger aircraft than a Harrier. Saw one at an air show a couple months ago with an AV-8. While this is an A and not a B, it's still pretty big.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen an A/C, but the B is roughly the size/takes up the space of about 2 AV-8Bs. It is a big beast.
 
nauga said:
Yeah, 'cause the F-35 isn't complex, heavy, and expensive enough. :rolleyes:

Nauga,
and sharks with lasers
Click to expand...

And that expense does not even account for the second and third order effects of the modifications required to our infrastructure to support the beast. There are multiple other systems and programs that are blowing through their projected budgets trying to accommodate the JSF because no one did the due diligence ahead of time to figure out what was needed. You won't see those costs ever directly associated to the F-35 program, but they are very real.
 
Well, lots of egos on display here
Short of a civil war the F35 will not be fighting F16's, it will be hostiles (rooshunn)
99.99% of the time the modern air-air battlefield is not going to be guns at a thousand yards
It is who detects the enemy first way, way, way OTH , and shoots wins
My limited understanding is that the F35 package was to be world superiority at this
Everything else was intended to be in third place
Until the Generals of the 3 services decided that since they wear uniforms with lots of cryptic ribbons and ****, they know more than the aerospace engineers and demanded more bling
So they ordered the newest Lamborghini and then dropped it off at Emilios Garage and Carwash to have low rider hydraulics and a Massive Audio System installed so they could look cool on Saturday night at the drivethru
typical
 
I agree with most of your post, but isn't it true that we have been selling F15s, F16s and other modern jets to practically anyone that wants them? How many do the Saudis or other M.E. countries own?
Dr. O said:
Well, lots of egos on display here
Short of a civil war the F35 will not be fighting F16's, it will be hostiles (rooshunn)
99.99% of the time the modern air-air battlefield is not going to be guns at a thousand yards
It is who detects the enemy first way, way, way OTH , and shoots wins
My limited understanding is that the F35 package was to be world superiority at this
Everything else was intended to be in third place
Until the Generals of the 3 services decided that since they wear uniforms with lots of cryptic ribbons and ****, they know more than the aerospace engineers and demanded more bling
So they ordered the newest Lamborghini and then dropped it off at Emilios Garage and Carwash to have low rider hydraulics and a Massive Audio System installed so they could look cool on Saturday night at the drivethru
typical
Click to expand...
 
Fearless Tower said:
I haven't seen an A/C, but the B is roughly the size/takes up the space of about 2 AV-8Bs. It is a big beast.
Click to expand...

I'd say it is pretty normally sized.......about Hornet or SH sized, smaller than the F-15 and a LOT smaller than the F-22 (which is probably the biggest fighter out there). The AV-8B is just a really really small, toy of an airplane.
 
The F35 program began 14 years ago. It is way over budget, to the point it's a laughing stock. It was unable to attend the recent farnboro air show due to its unreliability. It should have been scrapped years ago. Lobbyists have kept it alive at tremendous, needless cost to the taxpayers. It's a dog.
 
"The AV-8B is just a really really small, toy of an airplane."

Which won the Falklands air war, against Argentinian A4 skyhawks and French, Mirage aircraft.

Cheers
 
ralarcon said:
"The AV-8B is just a really really small, toy of an airplane."

Which won the Falklands air war, against Argentinian A4 skyhawks and French, Mirage aircraft.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Small planes eat smaller budgets and fit on smaller ships which in turn have smaller budgets. GB gave up the roll of Imperialist Force with the Indian Revolution, and with that the costs of maintaining an Imperial military. We still pay to be an imperial nation, but as a nation, we don't get any of the booty, private individuals who have moved their companies to Dubai to avoid having to pay tax back on profits payed by the U.S. Taxpayer. The U.S. is just a milking machine for money, and we're getting screwed.
 
Henning said:
Small planes eat smaller budgets and fit on smaller ships which in turn have smaller budgets. GB gave up the roll of Imperialist Force with the Indian Revolution, and with that the costs of maintaining an Imperial military. We still pay to be an imperial nation, but as a nation, we don't get any of the booty, private individuals who have moved their companies to Dubai to avoid having to pay tax back on profits payed by the U.S. Taxpayer. The U.S. is just a milking machine for money, and we're getting screwed.
Click to expand...

No GB did not give its imperialist ways until WW2 when FDR explained to Churchill the way things would be. ( GB went broke) As for the U.S. , we are currently paying top management outlandish salarys in many corporations that then refuse to pay their fair share of taxes. Many of these corporations include oil company's who run a monopoly and get absurd tax breaks from our government. Many others pay no taxes. The company that builds the F35 Lockeed martin, was one of the largest contributors to the 2000 election, which shortly after, is when the contract was awarded.
 
docmirror said:
Why the snark? And why use one example of the system to prove your point?

B-52 - Bomber
B-1 - Bomber
F14 - Fighter
A6 - Attack
A10 - Attack
C130 - Cargo
C-5 - Cargo
F4 - Fighter
F16 - Fighter

Need I go on? I don't think I'm the one who's confused. :no:
Click to expand...
My mind gets hazy. I think the F111 was pushed by macnamara as a "cost saver " to be used by all the services. This is how it was sold to the public. In the end it pleased no one and was a turd in a punch bowl. The F35 is the same absurd thinking only much more expensive with some models being over 200 million per copy. Think lobbyists. Think big presidential campaign contributors....like Lockeed martin.
 
ralarcon said:
"The AV-8B is just a really really small, toy of an airplane."

Which won the Falklands air war, against Argentinian A4 skyhawks and French, Mirage aircraft.

Cheers
Click to expand...

No doubt the Brits got more kills, but the Argies couldn't fuse their bombs properly or the Brits would have lost a lot of ships to those A-4's.
 
ralarcon said:
"The AV-8B is just a really really small, toy of an airplane."

Which won the Falklands air war, against Argentinian A4 skyhawks and French, Mirage aircraft.

Cheers
Click to expand...

The AV-8B sure didn't, as it hadn't even been built yet, and was only ever an American aircraft.

My personal opinion is that the AV-8 was a colossal waste of the already small USMC aviation budget, and they would have been much better served buying more Hornets, which can do everything a Harrier can plus a lot more (though admittedly can't land vertically, yawn). Same goes for the F-35B, the jet that almost collapsed the JSF program, which has probably added more total dollars to the development than any other item. Again, could have just bought F-35C, common with the Navy, and just admitted that trying to fly a useful combat load off a VSTOL boat is not possible. Which it absolutely isn't.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top