PDA

View Full Version : Only One of Six Air Force F-35s Could Actually Take Off During Testing




timosman
04-30-2016, 10:59 PM
http://fortune.com/2016/04/28/f-35-fails-testing-air-force/


APRIL 28, 2016

Software glitches continue to dog the nation’s newest fighter jet.

Five of six Air Force F-35 fighter jets were unable to take off during a recent exercise due to software bugs that continue to hamstring the world’s most sophisticated—and most expensive—warplane.

During a mock deployment at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, just one of the $100 million Lockheed Martin LMT -0.15% F-35s was able to boot its software successfully and get itself airborne during an exercise designed to test the readiness of the F-35, FlightGlobal reports. Nonetheless, the Air Force plans to declare its F-35s combat-ready later this year.

Details surrounding the failed exercise were disclosed earlier this week in written testimony presented to Congress by J. Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester.

“The Air Force attempted two alert launch procedures during the Mountain Home deployment, where multiple F-35A aircraft were preflighted and prepared for a rapid launch, but only one of the six aircraft was able to complete the alert launch sequence and successfully takeoff,” Gilmore wrote. “Problems during startup that required system or aircraft shutdowns and restarts – a symptom of immature systems and software–prevented the other alert launches from being completed.”

It’s not the only recent example of “immature systems and software” stalling progress on the $400 billion F-35 program. Aside from reports of glitches affecting both the onboard and ground-based software that drive the F-35—including bugs in the F-35’s radar software that requires periodic in-air radar reboots and maintenance software problems that could potentially ground the entire fleet—Gilmore detailed another recent example in which F-35s had to abort their test mission due to software stability issues.

In that incident, two of four F-35s loaded with an earlier version of the combat jet’s software were forced to abort a test of the aircraft’s radar jamming and threat detection capabilities due to software stability problems encountered at startup. The aircraft that were able to fly didn’t do so well in the evaluation either, Gilmore added.

Perhaps more troublesome for the F-35 program, overall, is the fact that software stability seems to be getting worse. U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs loaded with an earlier version of the software are reportedly the most stable, enjoying up to eight hours between “software stability events,” military lingo for glitches in one of the aircraft’s computer programs. The Marine Corps has already declared its F-35s combat ready, though Gilmore acknowledged that in real-world combat the F-35B would require assistance acquiring targets and avoiding threats.

The Air Force runs a newer version of the software known as “Block 3i” on its F-35s, and gets roughly half the time between significant software glitches—though F-35 program chief Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan recently told reporters that a new version of Block 3i software appears to have tripled in stability during tests, going up to 15 hours without a serious software issue.

Earlier this week Bogdan told reporters that despite the software issues, the Air Force still plans to declare its F-35s combat-ready sometime later this year. That could happen as soon as August, he said, though problems with the F-35s ground-based maintenance software will likely push that declaration back 60 days to October.

TheTexan
05-01-2016, 02:39 AM
The program's problems are probably due to budget constraints. We should give Lockheed Martin more money until it works.

sam1952
05-01-2016, 06:59 AM
The program's problems are probably due to budget constraints. We should give Lockheed Martin more money until it works.


finally, a voice of reason on this site...

Ronin Truth
05-01-2016, 07:43 AM
Take off without an engine, test. 100% Failed.

phill4paul
05-01-2016, 07:49 AM
Well, if the F-35 beats the A-10 in the tests you know the fix is in.


A-10 vs. F-35: Air Force warplanes to face off

Can an old war horse that dates back more than 40 years hold its own against the newest warbird loaded with the latest in technology and weaponry?

The Pentagon said it aims to find out and will pit the venerable A-10 Warthog against the F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter in a series of rigorous tests replicating what the planes would face in battle.

"We are going to do a comparative test of the ability of the F-35 to perform close air support, combat search-and-rescue missions and related missions with the A-10," Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation, told a Senate Armed Service Committee hearing on Tuesday.

The F-35 has been designated to replace the A-10 in the Air Force's main ground-attack role by 2022, but the plan has been met with skepticism by critics who say the $163 million F-35 can't do the job as well as the $18 million A-10.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politics/air-force-f-35-vs-a-10-showdown/index.html

FindLiberty
05-01-2016, 07:56 AM
Need some new design that also can't fly, maybe use a new type of bomb that will flatten the enemy...

How about a trebuchet wall-launcher! (a compact model could even use DU as the launch-weight.)

ZENemy
05-01-2016, 08:35 AM
What do they care? its not their money they are spending and nobody holds anyone accountable for shit like this.

AZJoe
05-01-2016, 09:27 AM
U.S. Air Force's most sophisticated stealth jet is beaten in dogfight by plane from 1970s... despite being the most expensive weapon in history

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3144873/U-S-air-force-s-sophisticated-stealth-jet-beaten-dogfight-plane-1970s-despite-expensive-weapon-history.html#ixzz47PzqtbVc



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTF_a1DuIyE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=793nWsBowxI

Danke
05-01-2016, 10:51 AM
U.S. Air Force's most sophisticated stealth jet is beaten in dogfight by plane from 1970s... despite being the most expensive weapon in history[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Arial]

Read more: [URL]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3144873/U-S-air-force-s-sophisticated-stealth-jet-beaten-dogfight-plane-1970s-despite-expensive-weapon-history.html#ixzz47PzqtbVc

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/51768581.jpg


"Hi. I have experience engineering controls for these types of systems and I would like to point out that the media has been doing an _incredibly_ poor job interpreting the leaked report.

The report in question described the results of a very specific test of the F-35 control laws. The result of test indicated that in a particular part of the flight envelope the plane responded sluggishly to pitch inputs from the pilot. This would make it harder for the pilot to exploit the F-35 airframe's great high-AOA capability because it means that the airplane will take longer than it needs transitioning to the requested AOA and therefore bleed more energy.

The report also noted that the aircraft itself has sufficient control surfaces to allow for much higher pitch & yaw rates. The test-pilot recommended relaxing the control laws to allow for faster pitch rates in the part of the flight envelope where the test occurred which would give a pilot more ability to exploit the aircraft's AOA capabilities.

The test did _NOT_ indicate that the F-16 was a better dogfighter. The F-16 was simply used as a visual reference for the F-35 test pilot to maneuver against.


Anyone who wants to understand what REALLY happened should read the actual report:
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-f ... 9a4e66f3eb


David Axe has a history of blatantly misrepresenting findings and totally misunderstanding how modern wars are prosecuted. Its a shame other journalists are repeating his silliness without much critical analysis.

edit: Every fighter is developed and tested this way: Start with conservative control laws then relax them as needed according to tests. Same thing happened with the F-16, F-15, and F-14 during development. We just didn't have the internet then so uninformed dilettantes couldn't broadcast their opinion."

fisharmor
05-01-2016, 11:03 AM
So Danke, how many times in their operational life were over 80% of F14s, F15s, and F16s grounded due to software bugs?

Danke
05-01-2016, 11:07 AM
So Danke, how many times in their operational life were over 80% of F14s, F15s, and F16s grounded due to software bugs?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

phill4paul
05-01-2016, 11:11 AM
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Depends on how much of the hardware is manufactured there? :p

AZJoe
05-01-2016, 12:24 PM
So Danke, how many times in their operational life were over 80% of F14s, F15s, and F16s grounded due to software bugs?


What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Well it would certainly provide a very nice baseline quality control standard. If it is not normal to have 80% of a type of plane to be grounded for bugs. With the F35 having the 80% failure rate, that would provide a teensy weensy little indication that that the $400 billion plane is maybe not so reliable now is it.

fisharmor
05-01-2016, 12:26 PM
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Well, it IS the original topic. Someone brought up a sidebar and you chose to defend the F35 platform on the basis that other fighter planes have had performance issues to begin with.
Now let's leave aside the point that the F14-16 weren't being compared to P51s during their trials (which is the correct analogue for comparing F35s to F14s) and stick to my original question....
...If every fighter goes through similar development and testing, how many other cases were there of over 80% of a group of foghters which have been declared operational getting grounded?

You're the one who started this "all fighters are tested the same way" motif.... I just want to know how many abject failures that is supposed to excuse, is all.