Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
#4443291 - 10/11/18 03:46 PM F-35 ongoing issues  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 106,902
PanzerMeyer Offline
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer  Offline
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 106,902
Miami, FL USA
At least it seems the Pentagon is on top of fixIng this issue but it does seem like the F-35 has had more than its fair share of teething problems. I didn’t know that the USAF was already operating more than 300 F-35’s. I thought the number was lower.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/11/pentagon-grounds-all-f-35in-wake-of-south-carolina-crash.html


Alea iacta est.
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4443296 - 10/11/18 04:15 PM Re: F-35 ongoing issues [Re: PanzerMeyer]  
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,512
F4UDash4 Offline
Hotshot
F4UDash4  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,512
SC
I'm old enough to remember when the media (pre internet or it would have been even worse) blasted just about every single weapons system we've depended on the last 20-30 years. F-15, F-16, F-18, Abrams, Bradley, Blackhawk, Apache etc. ALL of them were the subject of intense scrutiny by the media in their day.


“Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.” - Milton Friedman
#4443300 - 10/11/18 04:31 PM Re: F-35 ongoing issues [Re: PanzerMeyer]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,493
Crane Hunter Offline
Hotshot
Crane Hunter  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,493
Vancouver B.C.
Can confirm, however it seems there are a lot more eggs put in the F-35 basket than any other single weapon system in recent history, any shortcomings can have serious and lasting consequences.

#4443302 - 10/11/18 05:21 PM Re: F-35 ongoing issues [Re: PanzerMeyer]  
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,123
Pooch Offline
Hotshot
Pooch  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,123
Keller, TX
"I'm old enough to remember when the media (pre internet or it would have been even worse) blasted just about every single weapons system we've depended on the last 20-30 years. F-15, F-16, F-18, Abrams, Bradley, Blackhawk, Apache etc. ALL of them were the subject of intense scrutiny by the media in their day."

But with the Bradely it was certainly deserved. All those years and billions of dollars spent to design a replacement for the M113. And basically, all they did was take the M113 design.....and put a turret on it! But, I don't mean to derail the post. Just sayin'............


"From our orbital vantage point, we observe an earth without borders, full of peace, beauty and magnificence, and we pray that humanity as a whole can imagine a borderless world as we see it, and strive to live as one in peace."
Astronaut William C. McCool RIP, January 29, 2003 - Space Shuttle Columbia

#4443305 - 10/11/18 05:36 PM Re: F-35 ongoing issues [Re: PanzerMeyer]  
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,321
Lieste Offline
Member
Lieste  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,321
Bradley isn't *much* like the M113 - that description is more the AIFV, used by the Dutch and Belgians.

The arguing about whether to proceed with the XM2/XM3 or the M113 derivatives saw consideration of the M113 evolutions concluding that even deep modifications would fail to significantly improve on the M113, while the XM2/XM3 were significantly more mobile, better protected (if still marginal) and armed in their proposed form, and the need for a high mobility APC/IFV to keep pace with the newer MBT70/XM1 vehicles was a definite requirement.

This difference in ability is why the M2/M3 series were adopted, rather than abandoned in favour of more modifications of the M113 series. Whether significantly more/better choices could have been accomplished with the size/weight limits allowed is open to discussion, but the baseline M113/M113A1 is *far* from the better choice for what was required.

#4443307 - 10/11/18 05:37 PM Re: F-35 ongoing issues [Re: PanzerMeyer]  
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,729
Meatsheild Offline
Arma3 guy!
Meatsheild  Offline
Arma3 guy!
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,729
Peoples Republic of Yorkshire
the thing i'll never understand, is that orders tend to be placed and mostly paid for BEFORE any prototypes are even built. I get funding prototypes, that makes sense, but to buy the "finished" product straight of the drawing board hardly ever works out well.


SimHQ Arma3 sessions, weekly semi-serious co-op action for all ages and skills! check the forum sticky for more info!

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3732626/SimHQ_Arma3_Sessions,_who,_wha#Post3732626

All spelling errors are included free of charge and courtesy of a broken spell checker!
#4443312 - 10/11/18 05:45 PM Re: F-35 ongoing issues [Re: Meatsheild]  
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 25,562
wheelsup_cavu Offline
Lifer
wheelsup_cavu  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 25,562
Corona, California
Originally Posted by Meatsheild
the thing i'll never understand, is that orders tend to be placed and mostly paid for BEFORE any prototypes are even built. I get funding prototypes, that makes sense, but to buy the "finished" product straight of the drawing board hardly ever works out well.

Defense contractors have their cake and eat it to when it comes to funding. They get paid substantial sums up front for their projects and then they string out their sub tier manufactures payments for months on end. I always felt it was their goal to frustrate you bad enough that they would never have to pay you. The smaller you were as a company the worse it seemed they screwed with you.


Wheels


Cheers wave
Wheelsup_cavu

Mission4Today (Campaigns, Missions, and Skins for IL-2)
Planes of Fame Air Museum | March Field Air Museum | Palm Springs Air Museum
#4443318 - 10/11/18 06:03 PM Re: F-35 ongoing issues [Re: Meatsheild]  
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,512
F4UDash4 Offline
Hotshot
F4UDash4  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,512
SC
Originally Posted by Meatsheild
the thing i'll never understand, is that orders tend to be placed and mostly paid for BEFORE any prototypes are even built.



I can't recall that ever actually happening. I know there are plans, IE "We are going to need 500 of these" but I've not seen the actual order for the 500 placed before a prototype has been built.


“Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.” - Milton Friedman
#4443321 - 10/11/18 06:17 PM Re: F-35 ongoing issues [Re: PanzerMeyer]  
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,321
Lieste Offline
Member
Lieste  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,321
Though a functional prototype may not be remotely combat or production ready, an issue which can result in deployed assets without (or with heavily downgraded) core capability ~ the Blue Circle radars fitted to the production Tornado interceptors in lieu of their AI 24 Foxhunter radar being a notorious example.

#4443329 - 10/11/18 06:50 PM Re: F-35 ongoing issues [Re: PanzerMeyer]  
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,608
Suicidal_6 Offline
Senior Member
Suicidal_6  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,608
Gulfport
I drove both the M113A3 and the M-2 Bradley, was also a gunner on the M-2. I'll take the Brad all day every day.


_ _ ______________________ _ _

S6
#4443352 - 10/11/18 08:50 PM Re: F-35 ongoing issues [Re: PanzerMeyer]  
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 670
Zamzow Offline
Member
Zamzow  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 670
Originally Posted by PanzerMeyer
it does seem like the F-35 has had more than its fair share of teething problems.


It also has more than it's fair share of capabilities expected of it. It is by far the most ambitious fighter project in history. As a whole the project makes the Raptor look "simple".

#4443375 - 10/12/18 01:35 AM Re: F-35 ongoing issues [Re: PanzerMeyer]  
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,849
Arthonon Offline
Hotshot
Arthonon  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,849
California


Ken Cartwright

No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.

http://www.techflyer.net

#4443382 - 10/12/18 02:10 AM Re: F-35 ongoing issues [Re: F4UDash4]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,794
NH2112 Offline
Veteran
NH2112  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,794
Windham ME
Originally Posted by F4UDash4
I'm old enough to remember when the media (pre internet or it would have been even worse) blasted just about every single weapons system we've depended on the last 20-30 years. F-15, F-16, F-18, Abrams, Bradley, Blackhawk, Apache etc. ALL of them were the subject of intense scrutiny by the media in their day.


I remember the Abrams bashing before Desert Storm, complaints that its extremely poor fuel economy would be a problem, that it was too maintenance intensive, that the dust would kill that gas turbine because the air filters got clogged too easily and were a hassle to change, etc. As it turned out the Abrams, and all the other force multipliers (such as MLRS which I crewed) performed beyond their biggest advocates’ wildest dreams. Yes, they drink a lot of fuel, but the army planned for that and made sure there was ALWAYS plenty of fuel. I can’t ever remember our fuel tanks being below half full, we’d get the grid for a refuel point (traveling in a brigade slice wedge) and there’d be dozens of HEMTT tankers lined up and waiting.
Yes, they are maintenance intensive, typically requiring 2-3 man-hours of work each day in harsh environments like the desert. A lot of that was because at the time MLRS was built with early 70s tech (when it had been conceived) that was a little on the delicate side. Not all of it was stuff called out in the TMs; we learned early on that so much dust would gather under the launcher module that whenever possible you should drop the pods and sweep it out with a whisk broom and dustpan. It would be several inches deep, making it hard to check scavenge reservoirs and potentially gumming up limit switches. Air filters got clogged frequently but at least these were easily accessible and could be blown out with air from a HEMTT’s compressor or even tapped with your hands to knock the majority of the dust loose. But it was the high performance of these weapons that allowed them to outperform a much greater number of Soviet stuff, and high performance always has a price. As time went by improvements were made that cut down on maintenance, such as going from a 2-part paste ablative material that had to be replaced as it was burned off to permanent titanium panels that needed no maintenance. 20 years after getting out I can only imagine the changes that have been made, and some may have resulted in more maintenance being necessary as a result of performance increases. But when you figure that, in my time, a platoon of 3 launchers firing 12 rockets each could cover more ground than a battalion (24 guns) of tube artillery firing 10 DPICM rounds each, without having to survey & lay a gun line, the price of that performance was worth it.


Phil

"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."
#4443414 - 10/12/18 10:47 AM Re: F-35 ongoing issues [Re: NH2112]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,493
Crane Hunter Offline
Hotshot
Crane Hunter  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,493
Vancouver B.C.
Originally Posted by NH2112


I remember the Abrams bashing before Desert Storm, complaints that its extremely poor fuel economy would be a problem, that it was too maintenance intensive, that the dust would kill that gas turbine because the air filters got clogged too easily and were a hassle to change, etc. As it turned out the Abrams, and all the other force multipliers (such as MLRS which I crewed) performed beyond their biggest advocates’ wildest dreams. Yes, they drink a lot of fuel, but the army planned for that and made sure there was ALWAYS plenty of fuel. I can’t ever remember our fuel tanks being below half full, we’d get the grid for a refuel point (traveling in a brigade slice wedge) and there’d be dozens of HEMTT tankers lined up and waiting.
Yes, they are maintenance intensive, typically requiring 2-3 man-hours of work each day in harsh environments like the desert. A lot of that was because at the time MLRS was built with early 70s tech (when it had been conceived) that was a little on the delicate side. Not all of it was stuff called out in the TMs; we learned early on that so much dust would gather under the launcher module that whenever possible you should drop the pods and sweep it out with a whisk broom and dustpan. It would be several inches deep, making it hard to check scavenge reservoirs and potentially gumming up limit switches. Air filters got clogged frequently but at least these were easily accessible and could be blown out with air from a HEMTT’s compressor or even tapped with your hands to knock the majority of the dust loose. But it was the high performance of these weapons that allowed them to outperform a much greater number of Soviet stuff, and high performance always has a price. As time went by improvements were made that cut down on maintenance, such as going from a 2-part paste ablative material that had to be replaced as it was burned off to permanent titanium panels that needed no maintenance. 20 years after getting out I can only imagine the changes that have been made, and some may have resulted in more maintenance being necessary as a result of performance increases. But when you figure that, in my time, a platoon of 3 launchers firing 12 rockets each could cover more ground than a battalion (24 guns) of tube artillery firing 10 DPICM rounds each, without having to survey & lay a gun line, the price of that performance was worth it.


The complaints were somewhat valid though, all that extra logistical support those systems might have proved a serious handicap if they were ever engaged against the Warsaw Pact and not the militaries of dirt poor 3rd world countries.

#4443416 - 10/12/18 11:25 AM Re: F-35 ongoing issues [Re: PanzerMeyer]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 106,902
PanzerMeyer Offline
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer  Offline
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 106,902
Miami, FL USA
On the eve of Desert Storm, Iraq had the fourth largest military force in the world. They were much more than a dirt poor third world country.


Alea iacta est.
#4443449 - 10/12/18 04:58 PM Re: F-35 ongoing issues [Re: Crane Hunter]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,794
NH2112 Offline
Veteran
NH2112  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,794
Windham ME
Originally Posted by Crane Hunter
Originally Posted by NH2112


I remember the Abrams bashing before Desert Storm, complaints that its extremely poor fuel economy would be a problem, that it was too maintenance intensive, that the dust would kill that gas turbine because the air filters got clogged too easily and were a hassle to change, etc. As it turned out the Abrams, and all the other force multipliers (such as MLRS which I crewed) performed beyond their biggest advocates’ wildest dreams. Yes, they drink a lot of fuel, but the army planned for that and made sure there was ALWAYS plenty of fuel. I can’t ever remember our fuel tanks being below half full, we’d get the grid for a refuel point (traveling in a brigade slice wedge) and there’d be dozens of HEMTT tankers lined up and waiting.
Yes, they are maintenance intensive, typically requiring 2-3 man-hours of work each day in harsh environments like the desert. A lot of that was because at the time MLRS was built with early 70s tech (when it had been conceived) that was a little on the delicate side. Not all of it was stuff called out in the TMs; we learned early on that so much dust would gather under the launcher module that whenever possible you should drop the pods and sweep it out with a whisk broom and dustpan. It would be several inches deep, making it hard to check scavenge reservoirs and potentially gumming up limit switches. Air filters got clogged frequently but at least these were easily accessible and could be blown out with air from a HEMTT’s compressor or even tapped with your hands to knock the majority of the dust loose. But it was the high performance of these weapons that allowed them to outperform a much greater number of Soviet stuff, and high performance always has a price. As time went by improvements were made that cut down on maintenance, such as going from a 2-part paste ablative material that had to be replaced as it was burned off to permanent titanium panels that needed no maintenance. 20 years after getting out I can only imagine the changes that have been made, and some may have resulted in more maintenance being necessary as a result of performance increases. But when you figure that, in my time, a platoon of 3 launchers firing 12 rockets each could cover more ground than a battalion (24 guns) of tube artillery firing 10 DPICM rounds each, without having to survey & lay a gun line, the price of that performance was worth it.


The complaints were somewhat valid though, all that extra logistical support those systems might have proved a serious handicap if they were ever engaged against the Warsaw Pact and not the militaries of dirt poor 3rd world countries.


Not really, in a fight against the WP we never would have covered so many miles so quickly with so many units. If the army’s logistics trains could keep up in the desert, they’d have most likely been able to in Europe. I guess it would depend mostly on whether we had air superiority.


Phil

"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."
#4443452 - 10/12/18 05:32 PM Re: F-35 ongoing issues [Re: NH2112]  
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,512
F4UDash4 Offline
Hotshot
F4UDash4  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,512
SC
Originally Posted by NH2112
Originally Posted by Crane Hunter
Originally Posted by NH2112


I remember the Abrams bashing before Desert Storm, complaints that its extremely poor fuel economy would be a problem, that it was too maintenance intensive, that the dust would kill that gas turbine because the air filters got clogged too easily and were a hassle to change, etc. As it turned out the Abrams, and all the other force multipliers (such as MLRS which I crewed) performed beyond their biggest advocates’ wildest dreams. Yes, they drink a lot of fuel, but the army planned for that and made sure there was ALWAYS plenty of fuel. I can’t ever remember our fuel tanks being below half full, we’d get the grid for a refuel point (traveling in a brigade slice wedge) and there’d be dozens of HEMTT tankers lined up and waiting.
Yes, they are maintenance intensive, typically requiring 2-3 man-hours of work each day in harsh environments like the desert. A lot of that was because at the time MLRS was built with early 70s tech (when it had been conceived) that was a little on the delicate side. Not all of it was stuff called out in the TMs; we learned early on that so much dust would gather under the launcher module that whenever possible you should drop the pods and sweep it out with a whisk broom and dustpan. It would be several inches deep, making it hard to check scavenge reservoirs and potentially gumming up limit switches. Air filters got clogged frequently but at least these were easily accessible and could be blown out with air from a HEMTT’s compressor or even tapped with your hands to knock the majority of the dust loose. But it was the high performance of these weapons that allowed them to outperform a much greater number of Soviet stuff, and high performance always has a price. As time went by improvements were made that cut down on maintenance, such as going from a 2-part paste ablative material that had to be replaced as it was burned off to permanent titanium panels that needed no maintenance. 20 years after getting out I can only imagine the changes that have been made, and some may have resulted in more maintenance being necessary as a result of performance increases. But when you figure that, in my time, a platoon of 3 launchers firing 12 rockets each could cover more ground than a battalion (24 guns) of tube artillery firing 10 DPICM rounds each, without having to survey & lay a gun line, the price of that performance was worth it.


The complaints were somewhat valid though, all that extra logistical support those systems might have proved a serious handicap if they were ever engaged against the Warsaw Pact and not the militaries of dirt poor 3rd world countries.


Not really, in a fight against the WP we never would have covered so many miles so quickly with so many units. If the army’s logistics trains could keep up in the desert, they’d have most likely been able to in Europe. I guess it would depend mostly on whether we had air superiority.



It's likely that at least in the initial stages of a cold war gone hot in europe that the Abrams would have been retreating toward their supplies rather than advancing away from them.


“Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.” - Milton Friedman
#4443477 - 10/12/18 08:16 PM Re: F-35 ongoing issues [Re: NH2112]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,493
Crane Hunter Offline
Hotshot
Crane Hunter  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,493
Vancouver B.C.
Originally Posted by NH2112


Not really, in a fight against the WP we never would have covered so many miles so quickly with so many units. If the army’s logistics trains could keep up in the desert, they’d have most likely been able to in Europe. I guess it would depend mostly on whether we had air superiority.


Not so much, I mean, you'd be massively engaged in the most intense, fastest paced combat in history, facing an enemy that spent twice as much on their military in PPP terms, one that was bound to use tactical nukes very heavily at the outset, I believe there would be some logistical issues!


Moderated by  Murphy, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Agusta Treverorum - Trier
by Alicatt. 10/23/18 12:36 PM
Joachim Rønneberg has died
by KraziKanuK. 10/23/18 11:33 AM
Unsecure site?
by Chucky. 10/22/18 02:19 PM
Surviving a Sinking Helicopter
by F4UDash4. 10/22/18 12:39 AM
Research for my class: Sim players in Alaska
by OneSock. 10/21/18 10:48 PM
Trafalgar Day
by No105_Archie. 10/21/18 04:58 PM
World Series
by PanzerMeyer. 10/21/18 11:47 AM
1955 Belgium GP
by KraziKanuK. 10/21/18 12:58 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0