F-35 problems continue, worsen

>>31099637
Yep. Why bother at all. We have solar powered gliders that can travel around the world indefinitely. Just fix some miniguns on them and brrrrrrrtttt.

>>31099676
/thread

>>31099637
>the pentagon's top tester
kek, what the fuck does this even mean?

also, sick job outlining even a single specific problem which would actually be considered a problem.

>ground breaking technologies and software that are incorporated into a fighting machine on a scale that has never been attempted might have a few hiccups as the small batches iron out the few problems (which are not a tenth as severe as the previous generations) while production begins to ramp up


Who would a thought

Also
>F-35 successfully fired an Aim-9X the other day

>>31100102
Link:
http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-weapons-test-mission-record-2016-8

>In all, 30 munitions were dropped or fired from weapons including the Joint Direct Attack Munition, AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile, GPS-guided 250-pound Small Diameter Bomb, AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air heat-seeking missile, and GPS and laser-guided munition, officials said in the announcement. In five of the test events, multiple bombs or missiles were fired.

I find it funny how the second a big milestone is reached in the F-35 program that shows that they got their shit back together a "Pentagon expert" or whatever suddenly has something SUPER HORRIBLE!!!!! to say

>>31099637
Another shit talker without acually info to go off of.

becoming fully combat ready is a hard task and will take time.
it has a functioning gun now and people said that wasn't possible.

>Achieving full combat capability with the Joint Strike Fighter is at substantial risk” of not occurring before development is supposed to end
so, basically even more delays.
govt seems to have infinite patience with jsf. any other project would have been canceled by now.

>>31100665
>fully combat ready is a hard task
cry me a fucking river.
right now the project is 10 years behind schedule.

File: 1464098257525.gif (1MB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x533px

>>31100716
>10 years behind schedule
>still the most advanced multirole fighter

>>31100049
He's the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). His group in the Pentagon doesn't run tests (that's up to Lockheed and the US services), but he's an official 3rd party that collates that test data and reports it to Congress, etc. He is a person of authority, but his and his entire office's job is to identify problems with programs; they create 'exception' reports, hence why the only positive remarks you'll ever see from him on paper are passing ones. Personally he does approve of the jet's concept or design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDJzgqZ4bKg but his office isn't concerned about capability, only test and development.

Overall though, Gilmore isn't very good at extrapolating or making realistic projections into the future, or at least is just pessimistic / underestimates Lockheed and the JPO's ability to get stuff done, and overvalues testing as a major bureaucrat; in (IIRC) early 2014, he said that Block 2B would not be ready until the second half of 2016 and that the USMC were unlikely to declare IOC until late 2016 or 2017. Earlier this year, he said that it was highly unlikely that they would be able to go from performing Weapons Delivery Accuracy tests at 0.8 WDAs per month to 3 WDAs per month. Last month, the JPO performed 12 WDAs per month, and another 13 weapons separation tests.

>>31100716
5 years; USMC IOC was meant for 2010.

>>31100727
it would be the most advanced multirole fighter if it's ever finished and works as advertised.

but those 10 years in development hell do start to show. for example, the EOTS is obsolete compared to targeting pods available for older fighters.

>>31100102
>>31100131
Impressive. An F-35 can fire munition of F-16 and F/A-18. While having smaller payload than F-16 and smaller fuel tank than F/A-18. And costing more than a squadron of modernized F-16s or two Advanced Super Hornets. Truly groundbreaking. It's weight, that is.

>>31100806
>but those 10 years in development hell do start to show. for example, the EOTS is obsolete compared to targeting pods available for older fighters.

Come again?

>>31100806
>the EOTS is obsolete compared to targeting pods available for older fighters.
What the literal fuck are you even talking about? The only thing remotely close to EOTS in resolution, scanning area, scanning speed or processing is the advanced EOTS that they're going to upgrade the base EOTS with in a decade or so.

>>31100832
>While having smaller payload than F-16 and smaller fuel tank than F/A-18.
Neither of these are true.

>And costing more than a squadron of modernized F-16s or two Advanced Super Hornets.
Nor is this.

Jesus anon, at least try.

>>31100834
>>31100848
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/26/newest-u-s-stealth-fighter-10-years-behind-older-jets.html

>>31100848
>>31100834
>>31100806
The current EOTS has a resolution and spectrum range equal or very similar to that of most targeting pods operated today; the ATFLIR, Sniper XR, LITENING G4, etc. It does however have the advantage of being fused with the rest of the jet's sensors, meaning that an F-35 using an identical-spec IRST / TACFLIR is more likely to find a target on the ground or in the air than a 4th gen (because sensors can combine pieces of a puzzle and recognise that a bright pixel is a target and not just noise, etc).

There are new sensors like the Sniper ATP-SE and LITENING SE that have better specs than the EOTS (higher resolution sensors, multi-spectral cameras, etc), but they're brand new and only just entering service in limited numbers. The F-35 will be slightly behind for a couple of years, but Block 4.2 is confirmed as integrating the Advanced EOTS, which will be similar or outright superior to these new pods (we don't know its resolution, but it is confirmed to be multispectral).

File: f35-sasquatch3.png (1MB, 1600x1280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1280px

>This was made for some long-past F35 thread, and I don't even recall why now...

File: Illdomybest.png (291KB, 750x366px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 750x366px

I would love it if plane fags could tell me why every single thread is always just infighting. I don't even think it's that bad on /arg/, /akg/, etc.

>>31099637
That's not getting worse. That's being slow to reach full capability. There is a huge difference.

>>31100951

So basically the same deal as the upgraded M60s and the brand new M1s during Desert Storm.

>>31100979
It's not really infighting, which implies large proportions people disagreeing with each other. It's usually a couple of dipshits against everyone else.

>>31100983
Pretty much; the older jets are getting fancy equipment, but it's bolt-on stuff that misses out on some of the advantages of being properly integrated.

>>31100979
It's because some people are willing to wait several years to get a fully-functioning fighter that was the most advanced when it was being rolled out.

Others want working planes NOW that can do the job the new planes are supposed to do better but at a lower cost.

>>31100992
yeah, always a couple of dipshits trying to defend the white elephant. their daddy probably works at lockheed and they don't want to lose the source of pocket money.

>>31100951
but what about the lack of video downlink and IR marker?

>>31101177
Video downlink I did forget about; ROVER hasn't been talked about, but is almost certainly going to be part of Block 4. The overall situational awareness will be partly mitigated by DAS, the HMDS, etc though. Nearly all CAS is done without a video downlink anyway.

Laser pointers is something that I actually get a bit confused about - I recognise that it won't have a classic one, but I would have thought that a JTAC would be able to see the F-35's laser designator anyway; I suppose it (when designating) might be more of a flicker than a spot (if it were a pointer). There's certainly no hardware changes required to give it a pointer capability.

just dont touch my a-10

>>31100950
Didn't the Daily Beast also say the gun wouldn't work until 2019 and that it couldn't fly with hot fuel?

>>31101298
I wouldn't worry about that. In 30 years from now, A-10 will be still flying on CAS missions and F-15 will remain main working horse on USAF. Someone has to the job while F-35 collects dust in hangar.

File: somanyf35s.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

On a sidenote, so many F-35s...

>>31101662
It really is an ugly plane, like British cold war ugly.

>>31101683
that's what design by committee looks like

>>31099676
How would you re-stock the ammo if it never landed? #checkmate

>>31102083
Aerial rearming via hypersonic scramjet drones

>>31100832
Note it said "dropped". This is probably what happened:
>Captain: Sgt, what are you doing!?
>Sgt: Sir! Fitting an AIM-9x to the F-35! Sir!
>Captain: I can see that! But it cannot be done yet!
>Sgt: We had ord...
>Loud crash as the missile falls off and hits the ground
>Sgt: Uhh
>Captain: Uhhh...
>Colonel: What is going on!?
>Sgt: Uhh.. (strange sounds from below)
>Captain: Sir! We fitted a missile ... and it fell off! Sir!
>Colonel: Excellent! I will immediately send out a press statement we had a successful missile drop!
>Captain: Phew!
>Sgt: Phew!!

>>31101662
And all of them are problematic

LoL, and you're gonna pay whoever is gonna fix them. Extra money, So easy.

File: 4fc[1].jpg (26KB, 600x610px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x610px

>>31099637

>>31099637
I still don't understand how software problems stop you from firing the fucking gun. That may be fixed by now, I don't follow this shitshow, but it still bothers me that it happened at all.

File: AXt38mR[1].png (288KB, 1236x888px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1236x888px

>>31102405

>>31101298
>>31101625
The Air Force can't wait to get rid of the Hog because they've never really wanted or needed it, and it's a drain on resources, doubly so with Fairchild Republic dead. It fills no mission that can't be done better by the rest of the fleet in warfare, or by drones and prop planes in COIN.

>>31101683
>>31101883
>Durr much aesthetics

>>31102377
KYS

>>31102504
Software defined aircraft. If the code's not ready, the feature isn't available yet.

>>31102507
fucking lol

>>31102504
>but it still bothers me that it happened at all.

Then you can be happy knowing that never happened.

>>31102521
>USAF hates CAS

Stop regurgitating lies.

>>31102504
The plan since 2005 was to integrate the gun in the final software block, Block 3F, because it's such a low priority item - there was no glitch or issue that prevented it from firing, just limited time and resources.

>At least 15 capabilities in the 3F software package—including the ability to process enemy radar signals, track moving targets on the ground, share imagery between aircraft, use the GPS-guided GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, and operate the plane's 25-millimeter gun—are all still under development and at risk of not being ready for combat testing.

Would it really need those capabilities in hangar?

>>31102571
Never really wanted the Hog =/= doesn't hate CAS

File: file[1].jpg (94KB, 710x568px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 710x568px

>>31102574

>>31102571
F-16s, F-15Es, B-1Bs, Predators, and Reapers all provide CAS. Generally faster than the A-10 can and with lower fratricide rates.

>>31100832
Is that you, Pierre? Shouldn't you be working on your proposal to crank out biplanes?

>>31101099
>wait several years
Oh boy. Considering that the list of fatal flaws just keeps getting longer every week.

I wonder how many years it will take to iron out the design flaws, bugs and software delays?

I wonder if low ready rates will end up crippling any Marine efforts in the future?

I wonder if the Marines will have to fly their F-35s with the weapon bays open to keep them cool = visible to radar

I wonder if the Marines are going to have private + LockMart contractors helping service their jets in war zones?

I wonder if the F-35's super hot signature will make it even more vulnerable to IRST than conventional jets

I wonder if sensor tech advances will leave the F-35 without adequate stealth in a few years time?

I wonder if the 2x operating & maintenance Costs will bankrupt the US military and bring down the whole economy like Soviet Union

I wonder if they will ever put the fire suppresion equipment back into the F-35 so it isn't a time bomb

I wonder if the F-35's extra long runway will result in it being even more vulnerable to runway denial munition attacks

I wonder if they will need to continue to paint fuel trucks white, since the F-35 doesn't run well on warm fuel

I wonder if Pentagon will eventually realize that real world combat scenarios don't involve 1v1 BVR nose to nose situations since enemy fleets can actually share sensor data

>>31102700
>Oh boy. Considering that the list of fatal flaws just keeps getting longer every week.
You mean shorter.

>Lots of spreyposting
Fuck off back to WiB.

>>31100979

50% eternally butthurt foreigners, 50% fanboys who believe everything ace combat/some blogger/their uncle in the airforce says.

>>31102674
b-b-b-but I love that flight highschool image. It's great.

>>31101662
Why would you start production on a plane that doesn't even work right yet? You're supposed to fix the problems first, and then start building things.

>>31102835
This is how you get lawn dart F-16's anon.

>>31102835
Because if you did that you'd have to test it for 40 years, or alternatively, push it through being largely untested. They only found out about the rubbing issue in the engine thanks to a production / operational F-35 going up in flames. Because the test F-35s are well worn in, if they had waited to produce more F-35s, the issue probably wouldn't have been found until they started pumping out 200 a year and 500+ had been built. Having this long to tweak the production line and ramp up supply is also necessary to get quality-manufactured jets built (relatively) cheaply and quickly. If they went from zero F-35s a year to 200 a year, there would have been chaos, more delays and more cost overruns.

How many hold ups are because of fucking software?

>>31101322
Well it's funny you mention that anon because we've just learned "all three models of the F-35 are “are at risk of not having a functioning and accurate gun” in time for the combat testing because “significant deficiencies discovered during initial testing” in 2015 “require multiple modifications” before accuracy testing can begin"

>>31102894

It is funny because the F-35A, which is already in service, has an integrated gun.

>>31102893
Probably most; it's the main reason that all jets these days take ~20 years.

>>31102894
This is from the same guy who said that they wouldn't be able to perform 3 weapons delivery accuracy tests in a month, but was proved wrong when Lockheed and the JPO did 12 last month. Also the same guy who said that Block 2B would have only just finished testing now, and that the USMC wouldn't have achieved IOC until around Novermber this year.

>>31102894
The gun is the lowest priority weapon system, so unimportant the B and C don't even have it built in.

>>31099637
>The Director, Operational Test and Evaluation(DOT&E)

For people that don't know. DOT&E is a bitching agency.
It has no direct control over anything. It doesn't have to plan or execute research, development, testing, or operations. It only has an advisory role.

So they bitch about everything they can.

>>31102932
Are the still iterating 3i or are they starting to deploy 3F?

>>31102867
That's not what happened in literally every other fighter program we've ever had in history. They somehow managed to go from inception through prototyping to full production in 5-7 years.

F35 is a bad plane, a bad program, a bad idea in the first place and everyone responsible for it is bad.

>>31102964
This.

There is nothing WRONG with this. Somebody has to take a second look at programs.

But being critical is their job. They are not there to say nice things, only critical things about programs.

>>31102967
>They somehow managed to go from inception through prototyping to full production in 5-7 years.

And then have half of the birds crashing becuase something major is fucked.

Then, you get to come out with a new engine/frame design/whatever, and roll it out to 400 airframes instead of 50.

>>31102965
It's all Block 3i these days; even the first USMC F-35B IOC squadron operates several Block 3i jets (keeping in mind that Block 2B -> 3i includes a hardware change).

Block 3F testing began in 2014 or 2015, but only a few jets of the <14-aircraft (at least one, AA-1, was destroyed for live-fire testing) were testing it up until this year.
Block 3i testing 100% completed in May this year and now it's 100% Block 3F testing.

The operational jets, according to the latest schedules, will start getting Block 3F by November next year (the first jets to get it will be LRIP 9 jets coming fresh off the production line).

>>31102967
>That's not what happened in literally every other fighter program we've ever had in history.
That's because they were orders of magnitude simpler. The F-22 took 4 years longer than the F-35 to go from program-start to IOC with the USAF (5 years longer than for the USMC) and it has 12x less software, far simpler infrared sensors (for missile launch detection), no fancy helmet, etc.

Jets that went from inception to service in a decade like the F-16 had around 1200-2400x less code than the F-35, had far simpler airframes, sensors, vastly lesser capabilities, etc. Even then, jets like the F-16 had dozens of crashes in their first few years, had very limited capabilities and had to receive major modifications after going into mass production.

It was only after mass production started for example, that they found that the F-16 had a dangerous stall issue and that the only reasonable solution was to replace the tail of the F-16. This was after ~700 jets had been built with dangerously small stabilisers.

((Goldfein))

File: F35A IOC audience participation.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>31103089

>>31102571
>Stop regurgitating lies.
Then try bringing up credible basis for your assertion.

>>31102593
>F-16s, F-15Es, B-1Bs, Predators, and Reapers all provide CAS.
You confuse capability with intent. A beginners error.

>Generally faster than the A-10 can and with lower fratricide rates.
Cite, please. If you can.

>>31102983
>And then have half of the birds crashing becuase something major is fucked.
Never happened to Blackbird.

>>31103135
let's just hope the flankers play fair and give f-35 enough time to restart the radar

>>31103220
How about the fact that the previous USAF Chief of Staff (who pushed for the A-10's retirement; the new guy only came in this year) was an ex-A-10 pilot and has a USMC infantry platoon commander for a son?

>You confuse capability with intent. A beginners error.
Nope, you obviously have no idea what capability is. CAS is a mission, not an airframe.

>Cite, please. If you can.
https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/02/05/a-10-warplane-tops-list-for-friendly-fire-deaths/22949239/
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA506423

>>31103262
The A-12s/SR-71s were a small fleet with plenty of down time and maintainers to scour through every nook and cranny. Even then, 40% of the entire fleet was lost to crashes and failures before retirement: http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/losses.php

>>31103271
They fixed the restarts issue about 3 months ago; it's very likely more reliable than a Flanker's radar now.

>>31103220
>You confuse capability with intent. A beginners error.
And there's the stupid. ALL of those platforms do more CAS than the A-10.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/02/05/a-10-warplane-tops-list-for-friendly-fire-deaths/22949239/
The A-10 is god-awful slow with a pathetic combat radius, and can't scramble on-site unless based super close to the fight in progress. Vipers, Strike Eagles, Lancers, Hornets, and eventually the F-35 both outrange, move faster, and have significantly higher accuracy on payload, and the Strike Eagle and F-35 haul more and can use the SDB to further reduce risk to friendlies. Drones are already assigned overhead and watching. The Lancer will be able to haul 144 SDB-Is in the future. The F-35 24. The strike Eagle can currently haul 20, and up to 36 in a future update.

The A-10 was designed and built purely over parochial concerns to kill the AH56 Cheyenne project (though as a blessing that eventually meant we got the Apache instead) and shortly after introduction there was a massive doctrinal shift that completely invalidated the aircraft as designed: the complete shift from low-altitude unguided bombing to Medium altitude, high-tech precision bombing. Even in Desert Storm it's participation, save one incident, was almost entirely via the Maverick missile, with almost no gun runs and using the missile cameras as a kludged night sight. And in the one incident they were sent at a force with halfway decent air defenses they lost two planes and had 14 grounded for damage.

File: CloseAirSupport_chart2B[1].jpg (331KB, 595x1382px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 595x1382px

>>31103220

>>31099676
FPBP

>>31102967
Yes, many other fighters were pushed into production without proper testing and redesign.

That's why the F-16A was known as the "lawn dart." Pretty sure the F-14 and F-15 also had engine issues.


How long did Rafale, Typhoon, and F-22 design and production take?

>>31103422
>Pretty sure the F-14 and F-15 also had engine issues.
Ohhhh yeah they did. The F-14's TF30s were prone to easily flaming out, and the wide engine stance meant the thrust imbalance easily sent the plane into a flat spin. And because of the extreme fuckery Pratt & Whitney pulled with the F100 contract (no stress testing completed, shifted from manufacturer defect responsibility to AF being responsible for all repair costs) the F100 had Stagnation/Stall failures in the F-15 that couldn't be easily resolved with a diverter in the F-15 like it was in the F-16.

>>31103422
From the start of their programs, to when they reached IOC (and keep in mind that IOC means different things to different people):

Typhoon: 1983 -> 2003 = 20 years
Rafale: 1982 -> 2001 = 19 years (although IOC was declared with something like 10 jets in total, all in a single combat squadron; with there being no jets available for training new pilots)
F-22: 1981 -> 2005 = 24 years

>>31103089
>>>/pol/

File: f-35 bingo start.jpg (667KB, 1430x1352px) Image search: [Google]

667KB, 1430x1352px

>>31099637

>>31102573
>plane meant to blow things up
>gun is last thing on their mind

>>31106957
Not the guy you're replying to, but kill yourself

>>31107020
Why wouldn't it? How well does a gun work at blowing things up compared to bombs and missiles?

>>31107020
Don't feed the trips

>>31107020
Guns are shit at that compared to PGMs