USAF News and Discussion

[t68]

every now and then the "save the A-10" catchcry comes up in various forums

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/01/25/10-vs-f-35-flyoff-may-begin-next-year-general/

there's some key takeaways in this article (which have also been stated in here) which are worth remembering.....

This debate has been going on since GW1,
Gen. Horner

Q: This conflict has shown that?
A: It shows that the gun has a lot of utility, which we always knew, but it isn't the principal tank-killer on the A-IO. The [Imaging Infrared] Maverick is the big hero there. That was used by the A-10s and the F-16s very, very effectively in places like Khafji.

The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq's [less formidable] front-line units. That's line if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

Is Lockheed Martin's F-35 Just a Dud?
..DOT&E's 2016 annual report on Pentagon weapons programs devotes dozens of pages to describing as many as 276 "critical" deficiencies plaguing Lockheed Martin's F-35. Here's just a small sampling:
Accelerated wear on an attachment joint "between the vertical tail and the airframe structure" of a test model F-35B, which failed after only 250 hours of flight testing. (It was supposed to survive 8,000 hours of service).
Excessive vibration when firing the F-35A's integrated 25 mm cannon Opens a New Window. , causing its battery to fail.
Excessive vibration of missiles and bombs carried in the internal weapons bay on all three F-35 variants. If left unfixed, this could force the plane reduce speed to 550 knots (i.e., less than half the plane's rated speed) for safe operation.
F-35C wings incapable of carrying AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, requiring Lockheed to redesign "a more robust outer wing."
"Excessive vertical oscillationsduring catapult launches" make the F-35C "operationally unsuitable for carrier operations." (The -C is the aircraft carrier-version of the F-35).
And "objectionable or unacceptable flying qualities at transonic speeds" on "all F-35 variants."
And these are just the mechanical defects. DOT&E also spilled considerable ink detailing problems with "delays in completing the F-35's Block 3F software for mission systems, flight testing, and weapons delivery. According to the office, the plane continues to show "overall ineffective operational performance with multiple key Block 3F capabilities," including:
"Ongoing radar and fusion deficiencies affecting air-to-air target track stability and accuracy."
Problems with the "seeker status tone" providing information on the plane's AIM-9X Sidewinder and AIM-132 ASRAAM missiles.
"Out-of-datelaunch zones" controlling AIM-120 AMRAAMmissiles.
And "cluttered ... air-to-ground gun strafing symbology displayed in the [pilot's] helmet" that renders the F-35's 25 mm gun currently operationally unusable."
In all, DOT&E found "17 known and acknowledged failures to meet the contract specification requirements" in Lockheed's 3F software, and "more than 270 Block 3F unresolved high-priority ... performance deficiencies." Meanwhile, new deficiencies are cropping up "at a rate of about 20 per month," and according to the report, there is still "no plan to adequately fix and verify" them all.
What are the consequences for Lockheed Martin?
All of the above problems (and the hundreds more not specifically mentioned here) seem like pretty bad news for Lockheed Martin and its F-35 program -- which already accounts for 23% of Lockheed's revenues, a number that could rise as high as 50% over time. If these difficulties in bringing the F-35 online continue, that could conceivably convince the Pentagon to curtail the program, or even try to replace it with "a comparable F-18 Super Hornet."

Indeed, the F-18E/F could be adopted by USAF/MC just like the F-4 was. The Marines can fly them off CVNs as they now do with F-18C/D.

 

[beepa]

You do realise the aircraft is still undergoing testing don't you?
For a modern fast jet to be constructed and have absolutely no faults at all is unheard of and would mean the jet was over engineered thus too heavy etc etc. It's a fine line to design a part to last say 8000 hours without premature failure or the part lasting far beyond that time. When parts fail prematurely it means a redesign usually meaning more weight, when they last longer than expected their specs can be altered to save weight etc. Most reports focus on failed parts but we never hear of the parts they have earmarked to give possible weight savings.
Considering the F35 has currently a 15:1 kill/loss ratio at Red Flag the USMC wouldn't be caught dead flying F18e/f...They have never wanted the Super bug and they will probably never get it. Ironic that if the USN cancels F35c then they would have to wait for USMC flat tops to lead the way in a contested environment.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Indeed, the F-18E/F could be adopted by USAF/MC just like the F-4 was. The Marines can fly them off CVNs as they now do with F-18C/D.

The USMC has made it repeatedly clear that they DO NOT WANT Shornets and that they are committed to JSF for their future force development plans and CONOPs for that force construct. They have reinforced that at Red Flag and since the new POTUS sat in the big chair

Can we revert back to reality before we have these sidebar command and conquer style discussions

 

[Volkodav]

And why do people think that the F-4B/C/D, the F-15A/B, the Tornado F2, multiple marks of Hunter, Lightning, Crusader, Corsair, Skyhawk, Mig 21, 23, 27, 29, SU 17, 22, 27, 35, etc. were all replaced by later marks within their first several years of service by successful later models that then served for decades? Its because, traditionally developmental types are adopted into service and sorted out on the flight line, costing lives and billions of dollars.

Even the F/A-18A suffered structural issues early on that required fixing with bracing and composite patches, as well as vibration and shimmying problems with the nose wheel etc. Don't hear about these issues these days because they were fixed, worked around, or found to be less critical than first thought. I wish the hand ringers had better memories or at least better research skills, as pulling out old aviation magazines can be very informative.

 

[ngatimozart]

Indeed, the F-18E/F could be adopted by USAF/MC just like the F-4 was. The Marines can fly them off CVNs as they now do with F-18C/D.

You were warned two weeks ago about quoting significant parts of articles and the reasons why. This is a formal warning.

 

[Vanshilar]

Indeed, the F-18E/F could be adopted by USAF/MC just like the F-4 was. The Marines can fly them off CVNs as they now do with F-18C/D.

You should look up Betteridge's Law of Headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." If they have to put the headline in the form of a question, it means that even the author/editor doesn't stand by the story (they know the main point won't stand up to scrutiny or that it's too thinly sourced) and so they are baldly stating that it's just speculation or just trying to put the thought out there knowing that it's not well-defended.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

In this case, yes, the DOT&E put out a report, like it does every year, about the F-35. Yes, it says the F-35 program still has 276 deficiencies. Guess what, the plane is still under development. If it had 0 deficiencies then development would be complete -- the deficiencies are basically the items that the program needs to fix to finish development. The previous year, it had 419 deficiencies:

defensetech.org/2016/02/17/more-than-400-deficiencies-remain-in-f-35-stealth-fighter-manager/

There's about 2 years left for development, so that looks like in 2 years the number of deficiencies will be pretty close to 0. Something the article seems to forget to mention.

If you want to contribute and be informed about the program, you should read up more and post more thoughts/analysis instead of just spamming the thread with full copy-paste of badly-written clickbait hitpieces.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

You do realise the aircraft is still undergoing testing don't you? For a modern fast jet to be constructed and have absolutely no faults at all is unheard of and would mean the jet was over engineered thus too heavy etc etc. It's a fine line to design a part to last say 8000 hours without premature failure or the part lasting far beyond that time. When parts fail prematurely it means a redesign usually meaning more weight, when they last longer than expected their specs can be altered to save weight etc. Most reports focus on failed parts but we never hear of the parts they have earmarked to give possible weight savings.
Considering the F35 has currently a 15:1 kill/loss ratio at Red Flag the USMC wouldn't be caught dead flying F18e/f...They have never wanted the Super bug and they will probably never get it. Ironic that if the USN cancels F35c then they would have to wait for USMC flat tops to lead the way in a contested environment.

If it's going to take years to correct all deficiencies then the USMC will have to continue using their current F-18s, if not Super F-18s- & they may change their mind later. IMO, future attack tilt rotors could also take some missions (if not all) from proposed Marine F-35Bs.

 

[alexsa]

If it's going to take years to correct all deficiencies then the USMC will have to continue using their current F-18s, if not Super F-18s- & they may change their mind later. IMO, future attack tilt rotors could also take some missions (if not all) from proposed Marine F-35Bs.

Seriously ..... you obviously do not have a clue and are just spitting out comments extracted from the press (not all of which is particularly well informed) as your opinion.

There has been quite a bit posted in the F-35B tread that shows 'exactly' what the USMC think of the F-35 and it does not in anyway alighn with the nonsense you continue to sprout.

The Mods have tried quite hard with you and I things a lot of posters have refrained from comment as we simply cannot be bothered. However, as I indicated in the Submarine tread this is now becoming seriously irritating. Strongly suggest you READ THE RESPONSES to your posts from those in the know and do a bit of even moderately diligent research before continuing the topic. In my view if this is how you want to play you need to be sent on a holiday from DT.

 

[Volkodav]

If it's going to take years to correct all deficiencies then the USMC will have to continue using their current F-18s, if not Super F-18s- & they may change their mind later. IMO, future attack tilt rotors could also take some missions (if not all) from proposed Marine F-35Bs.

The F-35B has already achieved IOC and has already been deployed and is by all reports, performing well, why on earth would the USMC stop or delay procurement now? That's the problem when assumptions, or worse, decisions are made, based on out of date and/or inaccurate information (or perhaps worst of all, misinterpreting current real data and reports), projects that are actually panning well or have turned the corner get caned.

Interesting that you mention tilt rotors, there are still people yelling from rooftops about them being death traps and demanding the project be cancelled, based on development problems from twenty plus years ago and despite years of extemporary service around the world.

 

[John Fedup]

This link describes the USAF's desire to re-engine the B-52 fleet which it can't do because there is no funding. As there is an intent to keep these jets running until at least 2040, surely a way can be found to fund this. The existing TF33 engines cost over $1.25m to overall. New engines could offer significant fuel savings, longer intervals between service, and better environmental operation. A CF34-10 is a similar size to the TF33 and has a list price around 4 million. A large order from the USAF should have a better unit price but even at list, a fleet upgrade would be 2.5 to 3.0 billion depending on how many extra spare engines are ordered. For a 20 year period, not a bad investment, and the cost would be partially offset by reduced maintenance and fuel savings.

https://www.defensetech.org/2017/02/08/air-force-wants-cant-afford-new-b-52-engines/

 

[t68]

This link describes the USAF's desire to re-engine the B-52 fleet which it can't do because there is no funding. As there is an intent to keep these jets running until at least 2040, surely a way can be found to fund this. The existing TF33 engines cost over $1.25m to overall. New engines could offer significant fuel savings, longer intervals between service, and better environmental operation. A CF34-10 is a similar size to the TF33 and has a list price around 4 million. A large order from the USAF should have a better unit price but even at list, a fleet upgrade would be 2.5 to 3.0 billion depending on how many extra spare engines are ordered. For a 20 year period, not a bad investment, and the cost would be partially offset by reduced maintenance and fuel savings.

https://www.defensetech.org/2017/02/08/air-force-wants-cant-afford-new-b-52-engines/

Rep. Ralph Abraham, who said that new engines would increase the B-52s’ range by about 30 percent and boost loiter time over targets by 150 percent

from the article that's a huge improvement, also they are looking into PPP, I'm sure some of our UK mates have some thoughts on PPP's but that might be a different kettle of fish to getting whole aircraft under PPP's

 

[FormerDirtDart]

This link describes the USAF's desire to re-engine the B-52 fleet which it can't do because there is no funding. As there is an intent to keep these jets running until at least 2040, surely a way can be found to fund this. The existing TF33 engines cost over $1.25m to overall. New engines could offer significant fuel savings, longer intervals between service, and better environmental operation. A CF34-10 is a similar size to the TF33 and has a list price around 4 million. A large order from the USAF should have a better unit price but even at list, a fleet upgrade would be 2.5 to 3.0 billion depending on how many extra spare engines are ordered. For a 20 year period, not a bad investment, and the cost would be partially offset by reduced maintenance and fuel savings.

https://www.defensetech.org/2017/02/08/air-force-wants-cant-afford-new-b-52-engines/

They've studied re-engining quite a few times prior. And, going from eight engines to four has been part of the options. A smart economical solution would be using four of the same PW2000 variant (F117-PW-100) used on the C-17s.

 

[rjtjrt]

They've studied re-engining quite a few times prior. And, going from eight engines to four has been part of the options. A smart economical solution would be using four of the same PW2000 variant (F117-PW-100) used on the C-17s.

I thought going with 4 engines had issues with ground clearance, and ??handling due thrust line significantly further away from wing. Also, engine failure on outer engine of 4 big engines much diff to failure of outer one of 8 in terms of rudder effect required to compensate.
Not saying it is a deal breaker, but 8 smaller vs 4 bigger has a number of issues to consider.

 

[John Fedup]

Going with an 8 engine configuration eliminates the need to design and manufacture new engine nacelles. This is a significant cost saving.

 

[rjtjrt]

Going with an 8 engine configuration eliminates the need to design and manufacture new engine nacelles. This is a significant cost saving.

And possibility of a new redesigned rudder and fin, due Vmca performance requirements due worst case outer engine failure/assymetric performance if 4 big engines.
Moving to 4 big engines creates lots of issues that may be expensive and time consuming to remedy.

 

[Vanshilar]

Hmm are the B-52 requirements driven by the assumption of only a single engine being out? I would have thought that, since you have 2 engines podded together, an engine going out could very well mean that its neighbor also went out (either due to the same cause or due to the failing engine exploding). A 4-engined B-52 with an engine out would seem to be the same situation as an 8-engined B-52 with two paired engines out.

 

[colay1]

A number of years back there was an article highlighting a major issue affecting future B-52 viability and it had to do with the upper wing surfaces which had experienced a lot of abuse. Anyone know how this was addressed? A lot of older jets were scrapped so perhaps they had new units built?

 

[Tsavo Lion]

Are there any other off the shelf & more efficient engines to swap on 1 to 1 basis w/o having to redesign anything else? And why some B-747Fs or C-5/17s can't be modified as strategic bombers? With their 4 engines, they could carry a lot more ordinance further away w/o refueling than the B-52s.

 

[rjtjrt]

Hmm are the B-52 requirements driven by the assumption of only a single engine being out? I would have thought that, since you have 2 engines podded together, an engine going out could very well mean that its neighbor also went out (either due to the same cause or due to the failing engine exploding). A 4-engined B-52 with an engine out would seem to be the same situation as an 8-engined B-52 with two paired engines out.

I agree, risk 2 engine out on one pylon is a presumably a consideration, although military aircraft from the 1950's Cold War era were certified to different standard than today.

Re- engining with CFM-56 was analysed earlier. Possibly a case could be made for using second hand engines from decommisioned airliners to save money upfront?

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA428790
- See page 33 - no need identified for new rudder, but mod to incorporate mods to allow current rudder to cope.

I am not sure how much credence to give to this article.

Old Dog, New Engines: The Truth about a B-52 Re-Engine - angle of attack