This is just hardware problem. The biggest risk is in the software. The potential for F-35 being the most expensive software project failure is still there.
Lockheed is still writing the code for Block 2B software that provides enough functionality for the initial operational capability (IOC). That might be ready 2016 if the software gets ready. This would enable F-35 to fly limited combat missions.
The real reason for F-35 is in the block 3F (full capability). Full sensor integration, augmented reality helmet, data fusion between radars and IR. Ability to share raw sensor data between fighters. It's incredibly complex systems with millions of lines of code and it's safety critical code. Without it, F-35 is failure.
Software Testing Problems Continue to Plague F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/aerospace/aviation/softw...
The US military was planning to fly 5 f35's across the Atlantic for the Farnborough airshow next week in an effort to shore up support for the UK purchase. They were originally supposed to be there by June 29th so this is another delay. Looks like they haven't made a final decision on the trip yet (not sure if I would want to be one of the pilots flying these things across the ocean, a trip that requires ~10 aerial refuelings)
[http://aviationweek.com/defense/pentagon-grounds-f-35-fleet-...]
Whenever the F-35 is mentioned, I am reminded of this interview with the designer of the F-16 about the concepts behind the design of the F-35:
Url changed from http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-is-a-disaster-2014-7, which points to this.
Submitters: please peruse the stories you submit for links to more original sources. HN prefers more original sources.
Was this because of the VTOL system or it's requirement?
If so, is VTOL really necessary for the Navy? I know they want smaller carriers but they should have modified the plane afterwards rather than potentially screw up the entire very important project by requiring this feature. The US Navy already has a huge fleet of super-carriers, there is no need for VTOL in my opinion.
Why can't this super expensive aircraft be remotely piloted or have a sophisticated autopilot to automatically land at one of many predetermined places in the event of an accident?
We need the same kind of innovation in the jet fighter sector as we're seeing by SpaceX in orbital launches.
The F-35 is a disaster because it was designed by committee and has ended up being good for nothing. The body is wide because it had to accommodate the vertical takeoff jet and nozzle and the wings had to be short. This makes it horrible for dog-fights, a fuel consumption pig, unable to loiter over an area, unable to provide close air support.
The fact that it's stealth is debatable too. There have been instances where low frequency radar has been repurposed to detect stealth aircraft like the F117 shot down over Serbia. Basically nothing can hide from L-band radar (1 to 2 Ghz).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw&feature=youtu.be
Pierre Sprey is the designer of the F16 and the A10.
Heh. They wrote $400 million again. I guess $400 billion simply sounds too unreasonable to escape any editors spider sense.
As a Canadian, I must say that the timing of this fire is exquisite because the government is due to release a decision on the acquisition of the F-35 within the next few weeks.
First of all, it's important to realize that the Canadian government is not looking to acquire the F-35 to fill a specific niche in their air force. They're looking for a single fighter that will fill all roles in the Canadian military, as the CF-18 has been doing. Operating a single model of fighter is considered cheaper.
While the F-35 is probably going to be a good Harrier replacement, Canada never has operated any Harriers. The biggest need for the Canadian military is all-weather, long-range patrol and interdiction. Canada has vast, unpopulated areas, especially in the arctic, and a slow (compared to competing fighters), single-engine plane with small control surfaces is totally unsuitable for this application. To make matters worse, the most likely threats in this application are Russian jets that are vastly superior to the F-35 in air-to-air combat. The potential safety offered by the F-35's stealth in combat pales when compared to the certain danger that will accompany everyday domestic patrols.
Almost the only compelling factor in favor of Canada acquiring the F-35 is it's stealth technology. However, that stealth tech is of questionable value. First, Canada routinely defends but rarely attacks. Second, the F-35's stealth is questionable. China and Russia, and numerous countries that buy hardware from them, likely have access to radar that can detect the F-35 easily [1]. Given that these planes will likely remain in service for two decades at the very least, the probability of them remaining stealthy for that long is very low.
If the F-35 is so unsuited for Canada's needs, why is it still the front-runner versus much cheaper competition? Well, that's the thing. Nobody really knows except the Canadian government, and they're not telling. We can only speculate that it's more due to pressure from the U.S. and the certain economic reprisals that will accompany backing out of the F-35 program. A lot of Canadian companies are currently working on the F-35 project, and they will almost certainly be cut off if Canada pulls out, which may cause some of them to go under.
The F-35 isn't so much a plane, as an industry unto itself. The question is, is the Canadian F-35 industry too big to be allowed to fail? The F-35's have been grounded again right when the government was expected to finally give them the green light. This probably only delays the inevitable, but one can always hope!
[1]http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/04/29/360578/us-stealth-j...
$1 Trillion dollars to build a plane to give the US (and it's allies) a greater edge over it's "opponents" militaries (in theory).
I try to avoid been an armchair general but you have to wonder what you could have done by giving NASA $400 billion (equivalent to 15 years of their current budget) and spending the other $600 billion evenly between education, infrastructure and investing in new businesses/re-training.
Sometimes I suffer species embarrassment.