Everyone else is jumping on it as another fail for the F-35...
But what's the truth? The below chart is from the DL...
1. The F-35B...supposedly the weakest of the bunch is meeting KPP requirements already. That fact is getting lost in this story. The "B" will be a winner. Expect it to sell extremely well, especially with so many Navies acquiring LHD type ships.
2. The F-35A misses its KPP by only 6 miles. This will be an extremely easy fix. That's getting lost in this story.
3. The F-35C is (like the "B") meeting requirements.
In short, although I'm a fan of Trimble (like I am of Bill---I just think he's waaaaaay off the reservation when it comes to the F-35 program) but he made a non-story into a story.
One thing is for sure. News of the F-35 drives web traffic. Even here.
UPDATE:
Something about Trimble's post sparked a memory of this debate before...especially the fact that the F-35B is performing so well range wise. Then it hit me...This post by Sweetman! The US and its allies will be gaining Stealth, Speed, Superior Avionics and Extended Range with the F-35. The parties that choose to replace AV-8B Harriers with F-35B's will see Amphibious Ships finally able to perform not only legacy missions but everything from Fleet Defense to Sea Control Missions. The F-35 in general and the F-35B in particular are poised to be game changers.
Some are claiming this is a "short legs" problem. More like just missing a toe ;)
ReplyDeleteerxactly! well said!
ReplyDeleteThanks for keeping on this. I swear, I've never seen so many people get so worked up over estimates in my freakin' life as they do over those triggering doom and gloom declarations on the F-35. Personally, I think the whole 12 mile (6 each way) 'shortfall' can be eliminated through tweaking the FADEC software in any of about a half dozen ways the pilot could never notice.
ReplyDeleteI particularly enjoy this latest 'estimated' crisis. Guess how much sortie time is lost IF this "shortfall" occurs? At a .85 Mach cruise at 20-30k ft the F-35 will have to turn around about 40 freaking seconds earlier if nothing is done. I'm guessing this is a 'Yellow' Risk with a big up arrow going Green with a bullet.
Tradeoffs people! Aircraft design is about tradeoffs.
"I swear, I've never seen so many people get so worked up over estimates in my freakin' life as they do over those triggering doom and gloom declarations on the F-35."
ReplyDeleteIt's called "desperation". I'd love to seem fly an F-35B out to Mach 1.6 (or likely better) just to see a 300 comment post on Ares full of hyperventilating lunatics telling us why it doesn't mean anything. :-)
A more accurate & honest way to look at it:
ReplyDeleteF-35A - 106 miles under original estimate
F-35B - 81 miles under original estimate
F-35C - 115 miles under original estimate
uh no.
ReplyDeletethe F-35 is still in development so KPP requirements are THE most accurate way of looking at this.
as usual Thomas.
you're wrong.
Only modern military aircraft not to meet the original range estimates.
ReplyDeleteits still in development. are you trying to be this dense? and no its not the only modern military airplane not to meet original range estimates....
ReplyDeleteoh and Thomas...want a dirty secret? even as it now stands the F-35B outranges the vaunted F-22.
@Thomas: 1. you forgot to say "software". 2. Only modern military aircraft not to meet estimates? How do you define "modern" because the Hornet certainly never met it.
ReplyDeleteSolomon, considering the plane is still in development, how can you be so confident about the costs?
ReplyDeletebecause of the scale of the program. even leaving out the sale of the airplane to our trusted allies, you're still talking about arming the Marines, Navy and Air Force with them.
ReplyDeletesecond, compare that to the limited runs of F-15s and Typhoons and Rafales and Gripens....the US purchase will dwarf those programs and generate costs savings.
lastly, if you've noticed the debate, thats the last card that the critics have to play. you can talk about development problems but NOT one country has dropped out of the program. the Brits foolishly changed to the C and the Marines were forced to buy the C but the program is humming along.
Thomas,
ReplyDeleteRE:"Original" estimates vs. KPPs
1. OK. I'll type it again. "Tradeoffs people! Aircraft design is about tradeoffs."
By 'Original' I assume you mean the Initial KPP Goal (Best Reasonable) vs. KPP Objective (Minimum Required). The trade-space is in between the two.
Working against that KPP is the payload KPP and others. A good illustration on how KPPs are balanced is found in the KC-45 performance graph, a 'radar chart', produced after the KC-45 won the first 'non-rigged' KC-X competition and the Borg turned their political machine on to reverse the decision. see: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2008/05/kc-45-protest-more-balance-real-numbers.html.
2. RE: "Only modern military aircraft not to meet the original range estimates"
Umm...No. And you don't have to look far to find one. The F-18E wing drop problem came about when they made changes to the original wing design because of higher than anticipated drag rise. With the additional drag, the F-18E wouldn't even come close to the KPP objectives much less goals. How about the original F-18? In 1981, the Deputy CNO for Air Warfare told Congress that the F-18A's range was 5% short of the spec for Fighter Escort missions and VX-4 pilots were stating it was even less: about half of expected.
3. Jumping from Performance to Cost topics in same thread. In Transactional Analysis this is called playing 'Yes But'. Let's all pick one topic and beat it.