Britain told "No Access" to F-35 Software codes
Discussion
Ayahuasca said:
Can't help(from my non-expert perspective) thinking that parallels (PH pub parallels, granted) between the F35 and the German King Tiger tank can be drawn. The Tiger was technologically far in advance of any tank that the allies had, but it was so expensive and so complicated that the allies, provided with much greater number of less powerful, inferior tanks, like the Sherman, managed to win.
The Germans failed to appreciate that their dwindling resource was not individual tank capability, but the industrial and financial capacity to build and maintain them in sufficient numbers. You have a finite number of tank factory man-hours available so do you build lots of cheaper tanks or fewer expensive tanks? The Germans chose the latter, and they lost.
It wasn't just their tanks that were over engineered. The Germans failed to appreciate that their dwindling resource was not individual tank capability, but the industrial and financial capacity to build and maintain them in sufficient numbers. You have a finite number of tank factory man-hours available so do you build lots of cheaper tanks or fewer expensive tanks? The Germans chose the latter, and they lost.
The MP38 had nearly all its parts machined from solid lumps of steel, an expensive and time consuming process. The MP40 was made a bit cheaper but still over engineered in may respects.
I read a bike magazine article once about the R75 2wd sidecar outfits used by the Germans during the war, again massively over engineered with Hi-Lo range gearbox, locking diff and four reverse gears!
Hitler on viewing a captured T34 stated it was a Russian plant, no one would produce such a shoddy tank and send it to war...
Yes but is it worth this? (Back on topic).
The unit cost of the F-35B is $121.33 million (recurring cost) in FY 2016. The airframe costs $71.81 million, the F135-PW-600 engine (coupled to the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem) costs $30.82 million, the avionics cost $16.33 million, while other costs make up the remaining $2.37 million.
At the present levels of less than stellar IOC performances-NO.
The unit cost of the F-35B is $121.33 million (recurring cost) in FY 2016. The airframe costs $71.81 million, the F135-PW-600 engine (coupled to the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem) costs $30.82 million, the avionics cost $16.33 million, while other costs make up the remaining $2.37 million.
At the present levels of less than stellar IOC performances-NO.
Evanivitch said:
Mansells Tash said:
You've never come across Squadron Leader Angry Pants before have you? Well let me tell you sunshine, she doesn't like it one bit! I'm pretty sure there is a huuuge list of people who would agree you only need to come across her once before it gets very messy and everyone wishes they'd never bothered.
Oh I have, and on similar topics. It's entertaining nonetheless. http://aviationweek.com/defense/weapons-tester-cit...
Another DOT&E report out: JPO on it.
Some additional problem areas have been identified. Gun pod door disrupts airflow on F-35A, introducing aiming errors, gun pods on B & C behind in testing;
AIM-9X pylons on the Charlie are creating unanticipated stress on wing structure, may have to redesign;
3F software shuts down only after 9 hours (an improvement, but not acceptable;
3F jets boot up process always requires a reset or power cycle;
More from AvWeek:
"[DOT&E spokesman Maj.] Cabiness detailed a long list of the limitations of aircraft flying in the 3i configuration. The jets can carry only two bombs and two missiles, and currently have no gun capability or standoff weapons as the 25mm cannon and external weapons won’t be introduced until 3F. Further, the F-35As have no target marking capability for close-air support and other missions, require voice communications to verify certain messages, and have poor geolocation capability, relying on off-board sources to locate threats and acquire targets.
Finally, the 3i jets have limited night vision capability, as the $400,000 Generation III helmet is still experiencing issues with light leakage and “green glow” that obscures pilots’ vision during very dark night flights.
DOT&E also pointed to deficiencies in 3i’s sensor fusion, electronic warfare, datalinks and pilot vehicle interfaces “that will impact mission effectiveness and suitability in combat.”"
"Given all the challenges the JPO has left to surmount, funding for the F-35 development effort will likely run out before the end of the program, Cabiness says.
“In light of the remaining challenges [and] the demonstrated rate of progress to date, DOT&E assesses that the program will likely need additional funding to complete SDD,” Cabiness says."
As someone else mentioned (either here on in a link) due to the design age of some the sensors (which can't be changed) there are significant limitations placed on the A/C when in a CAS role compared to current A/C (never mind limited weapons carriage) and CAS is supposed to be one of it's main roles.
As current A/C carry their Laser Designators (with EO/IR sensors) in a separate Pod, the pod can be constantly upgraded, made bigger if required, have aerials etc added without a great deal of rework for the carrying aircraft so the current generation of Sniper, Litening 3, Damocles etc pods are much better than the LD/EO/IR equipment in the F-35. They have superior optics, ROVER datalinks to JTACS and ease of upgrade paths.
All I see are more and more issues with the F-35 and less and less "success" stories.
As current A/C carry their Laser Designators (with EO/IR sensors) in a separate Pod, the pod can be constantly upgraded, made bigger if required, have aerials etc added without a great deal of rework for the carrying aircraft so the current generation of Sniper, Litening 3, Damocles etc pods are much better than the LD/EO/IR equipment in the F-35. They have superior optics, ROVER datalinks to JTACS and ease of upgrade paths.
All I see are more and more issues with the F-35 and less and less "success" stories.
Holy balls
As a software guy, the thought of needing a 24 milion LOC system to manage aircraft maintenance and mission records world wide baffles me, that shouldnt be all that more complex then a simple web-based index system for a hospital with multiple terminals/sites.
And not being able to use the gun because the software isnt there... and the door-drag throwing off the aim, only to have a piddly 181 rounds...
Im not terribly surprised by its inability to carry Aim-9s (or similar) internally though, dont those things need to lock on target before firing?
As a software guy, the thought of needing a 24 milion LOC system to manage aircraft maintenance and mission records world wide baffles me, that shouldnt be all that more complex then a simple web-based index system for a hospital with multiple terminals/sites.
And not being able to use the gun because the software isnt there... and the door-drag throwing off the aim, only to have a piddly 181 rounds...
Im not terribly surprised by its inability to carry Aim-9s (or similar) internally though, dont those things need to lock on target before firing?
aeropilot said:
It's juat another one of those typical blogs that takes some fairly mundane development issues and blows them out of proportion and context.For example, the Eurofighter Typhoon only carries 150 rounds, and continues to trail behind the Tornado for A2G weapons integration, despite being pitched as a swing role aircraft from the start. And it also has a Low Radar Cross Section which is instantly useless when you stick anything on a hardpoint.
And yet, it's considered a very capable platform (suffering from lack of budget for weapons integration).
Evanivitch said:
aeropilot said:
It's juat another one of those typical blogs that takes some fairly mundane development issues and blows them out of proportion and context.Other than the glaringly obvious fact that the USAF are in La-La-Land if they think it will ever do what the A-10 currently can as far as CAS is concerned. F-16/F-15E replacement, yes, but A-10.....that's just laughable.
aeropilot said:
Other than the glaringly obvious fact that the USAF are in La-La-Land if they think it will ever do what the A-10 currently can as far as CAS is concerned. F-16/F-15E replacement, yes, but A-10.....that's just laughable.
Even F15-E is debatable imho, as a ground-strike aircraft perhaps, but the F15-E has a huge top speed advantage, and as an interceptor is probably much more effective.The A-10... nothing out there right now even comes close to the A-10 in terms of CAS.
IanH755 said:
Su-25SM 
To some degree, the Su-25 can carry less payload then the A-10, and its main gun, while the same caliber, has a lower RoF and less then a quarter of the ammo on board.The Su-25 is faster and go further though, but in terms of putting absolute hurt on an enemy, i think the A-10 is still significantly more scary
Mansells Tash said:
An Apache?
A lot more vunerable though from the ground, but once the A-10 goes, that will be all they have for close in stuff. Apache is perfect in a conventional battlefield environment such as against tanks etc., not so good against insurgents with MANPADS. Probably better off with AC-130's than Apache in that situation.It's no wonder the US Army would like to take over the A-10 fleet instead of them being withdrawn.....except that in the inter-service willy waving contest, the USAF don't want them (not fast and pointy enough) but they don't want to hand them over to the Army either.
aeropilot said:
It's no wonder the US Army would like to take over the A-10 fleet instead of them being withdrawn.....except that in the inter-service willy waving contest, the USAF don't want them (not fast and pointy enough) but they don't want to hand them over to the Army either.
It gets even sillier when you realise they are all going to end up at Davis-Monthan or scrapped, despite several foreign buyers being interested in acquiring them, as they are deemed 'too capable' to be exported :/MartG said:
It gets even sillier when you realise they are all going to end up at Davis-Monthan or scrapped, despite several foreign buyers being interested in acquiring them, as they are deemed 'too capable' to be exported :/
Makes you wonder if there would be a market for an updated A-10 based designVitorio said:
Makes you wonder if there would be a market for an updated A-10 based design
Imho the problem is that even an upgraded one would have limited use on the modern battlefield. The A-10 was built for a time when SAM technology (low level) of our enemy was either piss poor (low heat signature of the A-10 foiled them) or simply AA guns which it was built to withstand (to a certain degree) which is why it was so effective in the Gulf and has been re-deployed against Daesh.The problem on a modern battlefield is that modern shoulder launched SAMs would knock it out before it got within firing range of the rather impressive gun which would limit it to stand off action or mop up work for which there are far better equipped aircraft (incl drones) and helicopters; modern helicopter gun ships and drones are also just as good at CAS work.
I love the A-10, but I think its time on the front line is limited now, and sadly no amount of avionics upgrades and super efficient engine upgrade is going to save it in the long term.
PanzerCommander said:
The problem on a modern battlefield is that modern shoulder launched SAMs would knock it out before it got within firing range of the rather impressive gun which would limit it to stand off action or mop up work for which there are far better equipped aircraft (incl drones) and helicopters; modern helicopter gun ships and drones are also just as good at CAS work.
If that's the case why are these better options not being used instead of the A-10......?And if you say the MANPAD will knock out the A-10, then no helo gunship is going to be a better option than the faster A-10, and there's no drone in existence that can deliver the ordanance that a A-10 can.
Which is why, when it comes to wanting some help from the air, the PBI on the ground call for the A-10 or a Spooky if they are available.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff