What is up with the F-35? Part II

[Oracle]

F-35 Passes 100,000 Hour Mark with No Crashes
The beleaguered fighter passed an aviation milestone with only three major accidents to its name, zero fatalities.

By Kyle Mizokami
Jul 25, 2017

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter fleet hit the 100,000 flight hours mark without a single crash, a significant milestone for a major aircraft program. Although the F-35 has had three major fires, including one in midair, no planes have been lost in collisions with the ground, and there have been zero deaths and only one injury. This is in marked contrast to other fighters, particularly those during the Cold War, that had much, much higher accident rates.

According to a press release sent out by Lockheed Martin, the F-35 fleet "recently exceeded 100,000 flight hours." That's a milestone at which aircraft accidents and losses begin to be measured, but the F-35 really hasn't had that many.

The F-35 fleet has had three "Class A" incidents, defined by the Department of Defense as accidents involving $2,000,000 or more in damage to the aircraft and loss of life or permanent disability to the aircrew. In 2014, an F-35A caught fire preparing for takeoff at Eglin Air Force Base. The pilot was able to shut the aircraft down and escape unharmed. In September 2016, another F-35A caught fire after tailwinds pushes hot air into the aircraft's power pack. In that incident, the pilot sustained burns to his neck, head, and face. In November 2016, a Marine Corps F-35B caught fire in midair but the pilot was able to land the aircraft.

Among currently flying U.S. Military aircraft, the Air Force's F-15 Eagle has a lifetime Class A accident rate of 2.36 per 100,000 hours of flight, with a spike early in the Eagle's flying career and a relatively low accident rate 10-30 years after reaching operational status. The F-22 Raptor has a relatively high rate at 5.49 per 100,000 hours.

Among the aircraft the F-35 is meant to replace, the new fighter's safety record is par for the course or an improvement. The Navy's F/A-18 Hornet averaged approximately 2.84 Class As per 100,000 hours between 1990 and 2013, while the F-16 has a lifetime Class A rate of 3.45 per 100,000 hours. In 2002, the Los Angeles Times reported that the lifetime Class A rate for the AV-8B Harrier was 11.44 per 100,000 hours.

In the early years of supersonic flight, Class A incident rates were far, far worse than what they are today. During the 1960s, the Air Force's F-100 Super Sabre fighter had an average of 21 Class A mishaps per 100,000 hours, and out of 2,294 Super Sabres bought by the Air Force, 889 were lost to accidents. According to an FAA publication on high performance aircraft, "in 1958 alone there were 116 F-100 accidents, which killed 47 pilots."

The most dangerous fighter of the post World War II era may have been the F-104G Starfighter. A variant of the F-104 flown by the West German Air Force, it racked up an appalling 139 accidents per 100,000 flying hours. The Luftwaffe lost 30 percent of its Starfighters to accidents.

Compared to Cold War figures, the F-35 is a very safe aircraft. Compared to relatively newer planes it plans to replace, it is as safe as or safer. Almost all high performance fighter aircraft lose an aircraft or two during the developmental phase. What's remarkable about the F-35 is that no confirmed cases of planes have been lost to fires, crashes, or any other cause—period. (The 2014 fire at Eglin Air Force Base caused an estimated $50 million in damage, and there are conflicting reports as to whether the plane was written off as a total loss or not.)

Three Class A incidents in 100,000 hours of flight actually isn't a bad number at all, especially for an aircraft still in development—most aircraft experience a spike in accidents early in their careers, as design or quality control problems surface. Accident rates tend to drop as these problems are ironed out. If the F-35's low accident rate holds, it could be one of the safest fighters in U.S. military history.
__________

Well, some good news at least.

The IAF needs this beast, so that we can kick Xis' ass anytime we want.

Xi = dictator
putin = dictator
NK dictator
Iran, etc

[TopHatter]

The IAF needs this beast, so that we can kick Xis' ass anytime we want.

Best to wait until the bugs are worked out of it. In all likelihood it'll turn into another F-15, F-16 etc. For now it's a rocky road.

[citanon]

Best to wait until the bugs are worked out of it. In all likelihood it'll turn into another F-15, F-16 etc. For now it's a rocky road.

The plane is doing alright now but IAF probably won't be getting it as long as India has fighter development collaboration with Putin.

[Oracle]

The plane is doing alright now but IAF probably won't be getting it as long as India has fighter development collaboration with Putin.

F-35 C was already offered to the IN by the previous US administration. As far as Pak-Fa is concerned, I don't understand why taxpayers moneys are being spent on that white elephant. To keep Putin happy and a P5 vote in hand I guess.

Btw, India also has a collaboration with the French for Rafales, so how does it matter? I mean what is the thinking behind that?

[citanon]

F-35 C was already offered to the IN by the previous US administration. As far as Pak-Fa is concerned, I don't understand why taxpayers moneys are being spent on that white elephant. To keep Putin happy and a P5 vote in hand I guess.

Btw, India also has a collaboration with the French for Rafales, so how does it matter? I mean what is the thinking behind that?

It was never offered. All they had was an information session. It was misreported and misinterpreted in the Indian media.

The thinking behind it is that we don't want our whiz bang technologies and the brand new operating concepts that go with them to leak to adversaries. The French don't care because Rafale is old news. F-35s are only sold to NATO and very close non-NATO allies. Everyone else get offered modernized F-16, the F-15, or the F-18, which have similar technologies and combat performance as the Rafale despite French claims to the contrary.

[Oracle]

It was never offered. All they had was an information session. It was misreported and misinterpreted in the Indian media.

The thinking behind it is that we don't want our whiz bang technologies and the brand new operating concepts that go with them to leak to adversaries. The French don't care because Rafale is old news. F-35s are only sold to NATO and very close non-NATO allies. Everyone else get offered modernized F-16, the F-15, or the F-18, which have similar technologies and combat performance as the Rafale despite French claims to the contrary.

You had to ruin it for me, didn't you.
Anyway, the way the defense trajectory with the US is progressing, I guess I'll see this bird in the IAF in future.

Btw, what are your views about this statement -

In my recent discussions with current and former senior navy officials, I have learnt that the United States is on the verge of a massive effort to help build up the Indian Navy, and outfit its navy ships with nuclear weapons. The Indian Navy’s ship inventory is being significantly modernised.

, from - Ex-US Senator explains how US can help India deliver a devastating blow to China.

[jlvfr]

Btw, what are your views about this statement - , from - Ex-US Senator explains how US can help India deliver a devastating blow to China.

I can't even...
"outfit its navy ships with nuclear weapons": is the US going to supply nukes? And why, if India allready has them?
"massive effort to help build up the Indian Navy": the main problems with the Indian navy are it's shipyards, it's decision-making processes and it's government. Is the US going to magically fix that?
"inventory is being significantly modernised": yes it is. With russian and israeli missiles.

So... what exactly is the US supposed to be doing?...

[Oracle]

I can't even...
"outfit its navy ships with nuclear weapons": is the US going to supply nukes? And why, if India allready has them?
"massive effort to help build up the Indian Navy": the main problems with the Indian navy are it's shipyards, it's decision-making processes and it's government. Is the US going to magically fix that?
"inventory is being significantly modernised": yes it is. With russian and israeli missiles.

So... what exactly is the US supposed to be doing?...

Lol. Yeah, that's what I was thinking too, but it came from a US senator so I had to check. I'm waiting for an article from Pak press on how the US is the biggest nuke proliferator in the world. ;-)

Btw, do USN warships carry nukes? Submarines do that right(?), not warships. And you are correct about the shipyards and all. If 90% Indian bureaucrats are fired, the country would do some progress.

AFAIK, US is helping IN in some capacity (design probably or the aircraft launch system) for the indigenous ACs.

[TopHatter]

Btw, do USN warships carry nukes? Submarines do that right(?), not warships.

The only US vessels carrying nuclear weapons are the 14 remaining Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines.

All other nuclear weapons were removed from US ships and submarines 25 years ago, by order of George H.W. Bush.

[Oracle]

The only US vessels carrying nuclear weapons are the 14 remaining Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines.

All other nuclear weapons were removed from US ships and submarines 25 years ago, by order of George H.W. Bush.

So, each carries 24 nukes. That is a total of 336 nukes, and I'm guessing these are deployed. Just 336 deployed?

F-35 is multirole, but aren't the days of dogfight over with the coming of BVR missiles? Or is it that because of it's stealth other fighters have no chance against it(?).

[Albany Rifles]

So, each carries 24 nukes. That is a total of 336 nukes, and I'm guessing these are deployed. Just 336 deployed?

Each Trident D-5 missile can have up to 12 MIRV warheads. So the math is 12 x 24 x 14 = 4032 warheads deployed.

I don't think there is actually that number of warheads but that is what they are capable of.

Also, as far as ship based nukes....

As Top has said, we pulled them off the vessels.

But they remain in storage and are maintained. So to return to active service is a Presidential order followed by a training period and then deployment.

[TopHatter]

F-35 is multirole, but aren't the days of dogfight over with the coming of BVR missiles? Or is it that because of it's stealth other fighters have no chance against it(?).

That's affirmative.

As our resident ex-Eagle driver Chogy has recently said:

My latest passion is trying to explain to F-35 haters how "the dogfight is dead" and just how fantastically capable this aircraft is going to be. But laymen cannot let go of Spitfires and Messerschmitts and "check-6" and guns a'blazing.

[SteveDaPirate]

F-35 is multirole, but aren't the days of dogfight over with the coming of BVR missiles? Or is it that because of it's stealth other fighters have no chance against it(?).

Since AR addressed the first part of your question, I'll hit this next bit. The days of modern aircraft dogfighting are long over. This report from the CSBA shows trends in air to air kills from the 1960s until 2002. You can see a clear pattern.

1965-1969
Gun Kills 65%
Missile Kills 33%
Other 2%

1970-1979
Gun Kills 40%
Missile Kills 56%
Other 4%

1980-1989
Gun Kills 7%
Missile Kills 89%
Other 4%

1990-2002
Gun Kills 3%
Missile Kills 93%
Other 4%

Fighter aircraft still often carry cannons just as soldiers and marines still carry knives, but a fighter without missiles is in about the same position as a soldier without bullets, and any aircraft that is out of missiles (besides F-22/F-35) is probably high tailing it out of danger to go rearm and refuel and come back rather than trying to stay around engage with it's cannon. F-22s and F-35s may loiter around the battlefield to provide situational awareness for other aircraft in the fight as their stealth provides an extra layer of safety.

BVR missiles and data links on All-Aspect missiles have all but relegated dogfights to the history books, but more recent conflicts have shown that the limiting factor in engagements is no longer the weapons or the aircraft that carry them. The limiting factor is information. Lots of more recent engagements have seen US pilots in a perfect position to kill the enemy hold off on engaging and place themselves in considerable danger as a result, because they weren't sure if they were about to fire on a friendly or neutral target. BVR missiles are very potent, but outside a large general conflict they are hamstrung by rules of engagement and target identification.

The biggest reason the F-35 is such a potent Air to Air platform is that it was built to maximise the amount of information it collects, processes, and shares to friendlies while denying and disrupting the information the enemy has access to. Stealth denies the enemy information by delaying detection, identification, and targeting as does the F-35's potent EW capabilities. Meanwhile F-35s are essentially flying intelligence platforms that vaccum up data in multiple EM spectrums quickly process and share it between themselves and among command and control networks.

This information and network centric design also allows F-35s to engage targets with weapons they aren't even carrying. For example, an unarmed F-35 can use it's stealth to sneak up on an enemy aircraft formation and use its networking abilities take over the guidance systems on missiles fired by a destroyer 400 km away. The destroyer is much to far away to see any targets itself, and the enemy aircraft will see nothing but empty blue sky until they get hit with 1500kg missiles that seemingly come out of nowhere. It also means that while most fighters can fire 6-8 missiles at hostile targets, an unarmed F-35 can use a destroyer off shore to potentially destroy 90+ aircraft without ever firing a shot itself.

[Oracle]

Joe and AR, thank you.

Steve, the capabilities of the F-35, as you mentioned are awesome.

Two short questions;

#1. From time to time I read about how billions have been spent on the F-35 and that it is a white elephant. Your views.

#2. Do destroyers carry BVR missiles, for the F-35 to take over it's guidance systems and shoot down an enemy aircraft? Won't range be an issue then? Or you mean, cruise missiles from the destroyer will be used to shoot down hostile aircraft? In this case, too expensive don't you think?

Some more years down the line, I'm waiting for India to become a non-NATO ally and get this bird. The problem here lies with India, with a significant percentage of bureaucrats still holding onto the cold war memory.

[Albany Rifles]

Joe and AR, thank you.

Steve, the capabilities of the F-35, as you mentioned are awesome.

Two short questions;

#1. From time to time I read about how billions have been spent on the F-35 and that it is a white elephant. Your views.

#2. Do destroyers carry BVR missiles, for the F-35 to take over it's guidance systems and shoot down an enemy aircraft? Won't range be an issue then? Or you mean, cruise missiles from the destroyer will be used to shoot down hostile aircraft? In this case, too expensive don't you think?

Some more years down the line, I'm waiting for India to become a non-NATO ally and get this bird. The problem here lies with India, with a significant percentage of bureaucrats still holding onto the cold war memory.

My 2 cents. Now keep in mind While I was an Infantry officer awhile ago I transitioned in the Army Acquisition Corps...i.e., the part of the Army which buys "stuff". My field of expertise is acquisition logistics....i.e. figuring out everything a system needs to get to the field, stay there and fight and then disposing it at end of service life.

1. The technologies being used for the F-35 are just mind boggling. The amount of capabilities being built into those air frames are staggering. As Joe & Steve have pointed out the game is very different in the 21st Century. Now everything unclass I have read shows that the F-35 outperforms current airframes at an order of magnitude or better. Live flying testing at RED FLAG has shown its enormous capability. The USMC has their aircraft in squadron service doing operational testing.

So why the cost? Okay 2 things....requirements creep and production runs. The USAF/USN/USMC let the idea fairies go a little nuts adding requirements to the systems which some find questionable. Once all the good idea fairies were "shot" the aircraft steadied down and requirements creep came under control. As for production runs...the aircraft is currently in the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP). What that means is by acquisition law a program manager can produce up to 10% of the total numbers of his authorized systems. Those systems go through rigorous tests in the hands of troops. That is what is happening now. LRIP items cost more than Full Rate Production (FRP) because the vendor(s) are modifying their production lines and pouring test results back into the production plans. That is ongooing and that cost the government. Once that stabilizes and FRP begins the cost per airframe drops because now we have a set design and build capability. So that boast that our President talked about he got the price of the F-35 down? Nope...that was just natural result of hitting FRP.
Sidenote: As I have said before the most difficult thing to do on a new system is integrating software. The amount of software integration in the F-35s is staggering.

2. Burkes and Ticos do carry BVR missiles. That's what Standards are by nature. I have seen some talk of the USMC & USN aircraft having this capability but it has only been on PowerPoint slides.

Hope this all helps.