"Beating the Dead Horse Once Again - F-35 Coot" Topic

Yes, it is time once again for the annual, F-35 Coot flogging, since we are nearing the end of the year, and the jet still is NOT fixed.

In fact, only recently was the first US naval squadron finally declared operationally ready for service, IIRC, a full 20+ years after the start of the program.

On the plus side, the US Marine and Navy units at least can shoot a bit more accurately, since their birds have gun pods, as opposed to a built-in cannon. Seems rather counter-intuitive that the externally mounted, podded gun is more accurate than that of the USAF's jets, but there you go.

I find it astounding that after so many years, and so many BILLIONS, if not TRILLIONS spent on the program, that it still has so many issues.

link

It appears that there is no accountability in US military programs any more.

I imagine if these same issues had reared their ugly heads in China or Russia, those involved would have been summarily shot, hung in the public square, or sent to Siberia, or the Chinese equivalent of that (a re-education camp in North Korea, perhaps?).

Thresher I agree, this is what we have been talking about on some other threads. One more time, as has been happening for decades, we did not get our money's worth in a timely fashion. And people think we are spending too much on infrastructure, which is actually defense related?

Yes, it would have gone poorly for contractors in those countries, but they have a long history of quality control issues themselves. I hate to think we are anything like them. Still, they would consider this kind of mess to be treasonous.

For what its worth, I remember similar stories on the Apache, Osprey, Tomahawk, and Abrams.

In a lot of cases its the cutting edge, or beyond cutting edge, technology that seems to cause it. Hopefully these will be as good as the 'over priced failures' I listed above.

But, yes, we should get better for our money.

I recall reading that the gun software wasn't planned to be rewritten/written until 2024 or 2025, if then, and IF on schedcule, 5 – 6+ years ago.

Apparently, there were issues with it properly interfacing the HUD with the gun's alignment, and ability to hit maneuvering targets way back then.

Hopefully, it won't be an issue between now and then, or even afterwards, assuming it ever gets fixed at all.

I do find it truly amazing and treasonous that it doesn't work correctly already, that many of the VERY expensive F-35s will NOT be properly armed and fully capable of combat, and that Lockheed Martin can't hire people faster to get the software completed more quickly, given the hundreds of BILLIONs/Trillions we are paying for this program, or have already paid into it.

It appears that they don't take these major defects seriously, AND that those in the Pentagon won't hold them to account, since many are probably looking forward to cushy jobs with the company once they retire from their positions in our military. That too is treasonous and appalling.

This is the longest military procurement screwup I've ever seen. Though I remember when the F-18 was new. The first deliveries to the Air Force and Navy for testing failed simple stress tests. They ran them through their paces and would then go over the aircraft with microscopes looking for cracks. Only they didn't need the microscopes. The Air Force and Navy cancelled their orders and would only reconsider IF the problem was fixed. The Marines ordered a hundred more on the promise that a fix would eventually be made and that they could get a discount. Problems continued for several years before mostly fixed. This is like our new carrier. Too much new tech in one package creates too many teething problems.

Corrupt process, not enough leadership. Same old government story.

I guess I'll chime in. I've been working in the aerospace industry for about 37 years now. The problem is two-sided. On one hand you have the good folks at the DOD generating the specs for all these weapons systems. Do you really think that an airframe manufacturer can't design a gunsight that will work reliably? They've being doing it for decades. Witness the F-104, F-4, F16, F-15, F-18. Do I need to go on? I'm not privy to any of the details about the F-35 gunsight, but my best guess is the DOD came up with some crazy spec along with that new helmet system that makes this engineering problem about as easy as solving the unified field theory. They could have just as easily picked a legacy design that has worked since dirt was new. I'm not saying the mainframe manufactures don't share any blame here. I know, I've seen a lot of bone-headed decisions made by upper management in my career.

"Do you really think that an airframe manufacturer can't design a gunsight that will work reliably?".

Not sure the helmet-mounted system is the problem, or in play here, but I suppose it could be. From what I've read, the HUD, software, and gun/cannon don't work properly together vs. maneuvering targets, AND for some reason, they can't seem to keep the cracks from happening when it's fired, either.

Given empirical evidence over the last 5+ years, my answer is yes.

Makes me wonder if they are keeping from doing so on purpose, in order to reap more profits out of the program.

If the DOD wanted to put this problem to rest, they could reengineer the bird to accept what's used in legacy aircraft. But first they would have to admit they were wrong in wanting something that they really didn't need. But then again, the customer is the one holding the checkbook. Most engineers like to resolve issues instead of dragging them out so that the company will make more profits. As far as program management's real agenda, God only knows.