Posted on 01/27/2011 11:12:08 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
The Joint Strike Fighter program office has provided the detail behind defense secretary Robert Gates' Jan. 6 comment that issues with the STOVL F-35 "may lead to a redesign of the aircraft's structure and propulsion". There are no surprises on the list. The issues detailed by the JPO have been reported on before, and in most cases fixes are in design or in test. They are: lift-fan clutch heating, driveshaft thermal expansion, roll-post heating, lift-fan doors, bulkhead cracking and pilot-vehicle interface issues.Following the latest replan of the F-35 program, which adds $4.6 billion to development, the JPO tells Amy there is money "to address known discrete improvements" and additional reserves "to address unknown items that may be discovered in developmental flight test". The program office describes the known issues as "readily solvable through engineering adjustments."
(Excerpt) Read more at aviationweek.com ...
Worse than the 787.
They ought to scrap this piece of crap and build the F-22!
The F-22 isn't STOVL.
But the AV-8B is. Launch a program to rebuild the Marine AV-8Bs into AV-8Cs. Have Rolls Royce develop a new Pegasis engine with 10-15% more power, easily doable with modern metallurgy and a true FADEC. Develop a Fly-By-Wire system that allows autopilot-assisted hovering, which is the most dangerous part of the Harrier flight envelope.
Then gut the aircraft down to a bare airframe, and rebuild them with modern all glass cockpit, helmet mounted cueing, and a small AESA radar.
The first AV-8C could be delivered to the Marine Corps by 2020. The current Harrier fleet can easily last through the rebuild process that should be completed by 2030. then the fleet should last beyond 2050.
Would it be supersonic? No. Would it be stealthy? No. Do the Marine Corps need either of those things to support Expeditionary operations? No.
The Marines can replace their Hornets with F-35Cs.
One of the reasons why it works better and costs less than the F-35.
No one wants to see the defense budget cut. Fortunately a lot of conservatives have an understanding of weapons to the point that they know where to cut while having little to no impact.
The Marines need a forward limited runway front line fighter. I hate to leave them without that. They will get it working. Hold your shorts on.
You do realize their are two other versions of the F-35 that are not having operational problems.
The F-22 cannot operate from carriers (bye bye US Navy) and does not have STOVL. Without STOVL there are US Marine carriers (plus the UK) that will no longer support fixed wing fighters.
Would the development costs be less than the costs to fix the F-35?
Sure, the problems can be fixed, but if it results in a heavier F-35B with even less bring back payload, then what's the point?
On a personal note, I think the F-35B will be fixed, fielded, and have a long life. It's just not the end of the world if it can't be fixed.
Short Take off has limits to take off weight and speed!!! That’s why we have attack helicopters!
Modify the the V-22 to have weapons plus use their attack helicopter!!! This F-35 is a piece of bat guano!!! The F-22 is faster will carry bigger payload and is stealth. Also is has super cruise!!! Super sonic without A/B!!!
I’m not familiar with the details of the F-35 program problems.
I am familiar with the problems of a STOVL plane. Launching an airplane in a short area means that extra equipment is needed. Obviously carriers have catapults. The advantage to a catapult is that it stays with the carrier after the plane leaves. The plane does not have to carry around that extra weight, although the landing gear and airframe does need to be stiffened to take the energy of the catapult and arresting gear. USN planes have always suffered vs. USAF planes because of this increased weight.
So to have short takeoff ability something must be sacrificed. All the advances in avionics cannot overcome that physical limitation. In the case of helicopters, horizontal speed. In the case of the AV-8 it’s again horizontal speed. In the case of the F-35 the large fan, drive shaft and gearing, the parts they are having trouble with, have to be carried along after the plane takes off. With weapons that must be attached externally, I understand they lose some stealth, etc. etc. Moreover all those extra parts and pieces on a vertical take off aircraft require additional maintenance.
The mission is still there though. I think a previous poster did a good job of describing how the AV-8 could be upgraded to handle that mission.
Typically it is much, much easier to design something where most of the interfaces have already been defined.
Suppose it costs twice as much to upgrade a AV8-B than it would cost to fix the F-35? Is it still a good idea?
The AV8-B is a 70's aircraft, hard to maintain into the future.
What are the projected life-cycle cost of upgrading and maintaining the AV8-B for an additional 20 years, versus procuring the F-35?
Depends on the flight hours. Some components have a in-hours time limit. Main structural components for instance are designed for long life and not for replacement. For instance some B-17s are still flying from WWII. Not many though.
The life cycle costs depend on what is chosen for upgrading. I would deffer to the previous poster for specifics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.