RT on the Many Failings of the F-35

Not that you should trust the former Russia Today on, well...anything.  Their story is based upon a damning report from the 'National Security Network' which you can read in its entirety here.

Don't Bring an F-35 to a Dogfight

Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight*

New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle

by DAVID AXE

A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can’t turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy’s own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January.

“The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage,” the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled “for official use only.”

The test pilot’s report is the latest evidence of fundamental problems with the design of the F-35 — which, at a total program cost of more than a trillion dollars, is history’s most expensive weapon.

The U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps — not to mention the air forces and navies of more than a dozen U.S. allies — are counting on the Lockheed Martin-made JSF to replace many if not most of their current fighter jets.

And that means that, within a few decades, American and allied aviators will fly into battle in an inferior fighter — one that could get them killed … and cost the United States control of the air.

...

The F-35 jockey tried to target the F-16 with the stealth jet’s 25-millimeter cannon, but the smaller F-16 easily dodged. “Instead of catching the bandit off-guard by rapidly pull aft to achieve lead, the nose rate was slow, allowing him to easily time his jink prior to a gun solution,” the JSF pilot complained.

And when the pilot of the F-16 turned the tables on the F-35, maneuvering to put the stealth plane in his own gunsight, the JSF jockey found he couldn’t maneuver out of the way, owing to a “lack of nose rate.”

The F-35 pilot came right out and said it — if you’re flying a JSF, there’s no point in trying to get into a sustained, close turning battle with another fighter. “There were not compelling reasons to fight in this region.” God help you if the enemy surprises you and you have no choice but to turn.

...

And to add insult to injury, the JSF flier discovered he couldn’t even comfortably move his head inside the radar-evading jet’s cramped cockpit. “The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft.” That allowed the F-16 to sneak up on him.

In the end, the F-35 — the only new fighter jet that America and most of its allies are developing — is demonstrably inferior in a dogfight with the F-16, which the U.S. Air Force first acquired in the late 1970s.

Jack of all trades, master of none; Putting all your eggs in one basket; Throwing good money after bad -- There are probably other cliches as well that could be used to describe the F-35. Of course, just because something is a cliche, doesn't mean it's not true.

The US is in all or nothing with this plane, and it's dragging it's own allies down with it thanks to the shared funding of the JSF program.

I would think there are still some alternatives they could pursue, from the Rafale to the Eurofighter or the Super Hornet on the more advanced end, to fill the gaps in their aging forces, whilst holding off on too much of a commitment to purchasing F-35's till the US can get its act together.  But they presumably still want their flying Stealth Swiss Army Knife, and I suppose that, above and beyond the psychological pull of those sunk costs, there may be contractual consequences to placing orders later versus now.

Whatever.  I'm sure they know what they're doing.


* But of course the F-35 is so advanced that situation would surely never arise...until it did.


Update: Looks like WiB just published the actual report in .png format with the names of personnel removed.

Buy Now Before Supplies Run Out

IT’S crunch-time for the most expensive military project in history: After a decade of delays, cost blowouts — and a recent engine blow-up — the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter must now face reality.

The first armed and active squadron of 10 F-35 stealth fighters is scheduled to be handed over to the US Marines on July 10.

It’s been a long and bumpy ride for the project which was initiated as early as 1996 and first flew in 2006. It’s supposed to fill a wide variety of roles currently filled by ageing aircraft such as the F/A-18, A-10, F-16 — and the iconic Harrier ‘jump jet’.

Earlier this month several F-35A Lightning IIs for the first time took part in US war-games.

Yes, finally !

The F-35s currently flying aren’t the real thing. They’re “operationally representative” aircraft. After almost 20 years, they’re still not fully operational.

Even though they’re now supposed to be ready for combat.

Wait, what ?

The US Marine Corps says it will not be deploying its F-35B (Short Take-off, Vertical Landing) variant of the stealth fighter when they’re handed over next month.

They won’t be joining the fight against Islamic State or the posturing against Russia or China any time soon.

...

As delivered, the aircraft will be limited to escort, armed reconnaissance and some close air support missions.

This is because production F-35s have not yet been fitted with the non-stealthy wing pylons necessary to carry a significant array of weapons — including a gun pod — and key software hurdles remain for the integration of others.

Could we not just send up some Cesnas instead ?

There also remain concerns over the F-35’s controversial engine. As a new report reveals, the cause of a “catastrophic” engine fire which did $US50 million damage to an F-35 at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida last year is yet to be fully resolved. The aircraft was set alight by a failed turbine rotor arm which spat turbine blades through the fuselage, severing the fuel and hydraulic systems which are packed tightly around the engine.

Don't let the whole 'might catch on fire' thing worry you.  After all, unlike our other product, these planes can...fly in the rain.

Despite the ongoing issues, the Pentagon has asked the US government to hand over $US11 billion for the purchase of 57 F-35s in the next fiscal year and urged further “upfront” commitment from international buyers — arguing that “bulk buys” of the unfinished aircraft will result in savings.

Of course it will.  C'mon, international buyers, can ya not spare a few billion for Unca' Sam ?  We'll have all the kinks worked out by oh, 2037 or so, and by then, whatta bargain these babies'll be !

Always with the Unintended Consequences

So, it seems like the investigation into the Germanwings crash in France is pointing towards the possibility that one of the pilots was locked out of the cabin, and unable to re-enter and prevent the ultimately fatal descent into the mountains.

a) This is horrifying
b) I'd predict that one phrase likely to be popping up sooner or later is 'who could have predicted' or one of the popular variants thereof.  Ya know, as with Condi circa 2001/2.

Were there no warnings of unintended consequences back 'round about 2002, when the FAA was frantically rethinking airport security, specifically to prevent the one particular vulnerability exploited on 11 September, 2001, without so much consideration towards the...entire rest of aviation history ?  This isn't ancient history.  I'm thinking...someone out there probably considered this sort of eventuality, and that's it's only a matter of time before a reporter unearths it.

And as for more recent history, well...

Air Canada, 2006: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37a9dd60-18a9-4155-a6bb-8a8e8976bc04
Air India, 2013: http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2013/05/16/air-india-captain-locked-out-after-cockpit-door-jams-mid-flight/2165305/
Transavia, 2013: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/9838956/Pilot-locked-out-of-cockpit-as-co-pilot-slept.html
LAM Mozambique Airlines, 2013: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAM_Mozambique_Airlines_Flight_470
Air New Zealand, 2014: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11288373
Ethiopian Airlines, 2014: http://www.flyingmag.com/news/bizarre-ethiopian-airlines-hijacking-ends-copilots-arrest

That's all I found in a fairly brief search, but the prevalence of stories from 2013/4 is interesting perhaps.  Just related to the timing of the uptake of the newer technologies ?

I suspect the plane in the 2006 incident may have not had the current level of fortification, given that the crew in that story were able to 'remove the door from its hinges.'  Has some interesting verbiage nonetheless:

Eventually, the crew forced the door open by taking the door off its hinges completely, and the pilots safely landed the plane -- although in the event that the pilot was unable to access the cockpit, the first officer is also fully qualified to land the aircraft.

Air Canada Jazz said the incident is a first for them. But in Canada, a pilot getting locked out of the cockpit is a "non-reportable" incident, meaning airlines have no obligation to inform Transport Canada about it as they investigate themselves.

However, airline analysts warn that incidents like these are disasters waiting to happen -- both in terms of accidents related to human error and vulnerability to terrorism.

Oh, and one bonus story also from 2006 that may relate to earlier theories of what happened to this flight: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2006/dec/19/theairlineindustry.travel

Disturbingly, there had already been related emergencies on other airlines. After a 2003 Ryanair episode with another Boeing 737, Irish investigators had warned of "the potential for a full-scale accident" in exactly the kind of pressurisation emergency that later caused the Greek crash. They said: "With the locked door policy endeavouring to solve one specific problem, it may be creating another one or more problems that could impinge on aviation safety ... The implications for flight safety in the specific scenario of flight crew hypoxia is not being addressed by a locked cockpit door policy. This is a ... problem."

Similarly in 2004, British investigators described how a fire broke out in the passenger cabin of a British Airways plane taking off from Heathrow. Cabin staff spent time desperately banging on the locked cockpit door to try to attract the pilots' attention. The British investigation report warned that "both the flight crew and cabin crew were initially hampered in their efforts to deal with the incident promptly due to their inability to communicate with each other across the locked flight deck door."

Chris Roberts, a recently retired senior airline pilot and manager, told us: "With the locked cockpit door in place, communications are more difficult." He says: "Some regulators and airlines have dealt with this adequately but in some cases there is still more work and more training needed."

By contrast, shortly before September 11 2001, when cockpit doors were still generally open, an Aer Lingus stewardess was able to save the day by rushing in three times to warn her captain that passenger oxygen masks had dropped. Air conditioning had inadvertently been switched off. The inquiry into that incident found that oxygen deprivation had probably confused the pilots: "The continued persistence of the [stewardess] in keeping the flight crew advised of the deteriorating cabin condition did, without doubt, contribute to the safe conclusion of this serious incident."

As late as January 2001, British Airways was adamant that locked doors were too dangerous to adopt. Following an incident in which a mentally ill passenger attacked the pilots of a jumbo jet, BA chief executive Rod Eddington said: "We will not be locking the door because it does not make sense ... Locking the door would cause more safety problems than it would solve." But September 11 caused a panic reaction. Locked doors were hastily installed on planes all over the world despite a warning from the then US national transportation safety board vice-chairwoman, Carol Carmody. She said in May 2002: "We must be sure that crew communications during emergency systems are not compromised ... Access to the cockpit can be very important in an emergency."

Oh, and I'd almost forgotten this one: http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a10270/in-light-of-mh370-evidence-could-plane-cockpits-be-too-secure-16611747/

John Magaw, the first person to head the nascent TSA in 2001, told CNN that an always-locked cockpit was a concern since the outset. He said he told airlines, "Don't lock those doors so that you can't get in from the outside if something happens, and it fell on deaf ears," alluding to a well-publicized case of pilots who "flew past the airport because they were both asleep." However, some pilots scoffed at the idea that a locked cockpit is a serious concern, noting that planes are programmed to fly safely and even land on autopilot in the unlikely event both pilots nod off.

 Former Jetblue CEO and founder David Neeleman, whose airline was the first to install the reinforced cockpit doors system-wide after 9/11, tells PopMech that the latest troubling scenario means that "perhaps there needs to be way to get back in that door."

"But nobody ever thought about having to protect the passengers from the pilots," he says.