Defense Issues

Military and general security

F-35 cheated on performance tests

Posted by Picard578 on October 18, 2012

Wired.com article is here:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/jsf-test/

While F-35 has been stated to have met all performance criteria, I have been sceptical about statement – not only because performance criteria were less than impressive themselves, but because I was aware that money and reputation that went into F-35 meant that USAF and Lockheed Martin will fight tooth and nail to keep F-35s reputation untarnished, including favorite tool of all corporations: lying about their products (alternatively known as “marketing”, “promoting product” etc).

I have been proven right. As can be seen from the article, only reason F-35 has met criteria is that already-low criteria bar has been lowered even further. End result is about the same as you would expect from building a fighter with no performance requirements stated, and then writing performance requirements to be the same as said fighter actually achieved. Suffice to say, that is not how weapons are being designed.

But noone at USAF or Lockheed Martin will care as long as their pockets are full and their bribes regular.

Advertisements

11 Responses to “F-35 cheated on performance tests”

  1. Chris said

    What will be truly interesting is when the really difficult tests – the demanding flight tests (assuming these are even done) are performed on the fighter how well it will do, or more accurately, how much it will need “spin”.

    There is some evidence to suggest that there have been cover-ups regarding the severe issues that the F-22 had. I’m not talking about the stealth, but there may be defects in the structure (it had to be reinforced) that remain unsolved, and possibly the software as well.

    I would not be surprised if there were coverups in other pieces of military equipment.

  2. Chris said

    By the way, I don’t know if I ever mentioned this, but it is quite scary how the US Navy has fudged tests. Examples:

    1. Carriers are not “allowed” to be sunk in exercises. Any submarine captain who apparently speaks up in the USN is drummed out on how they have managed to take out a carrier.

    2. Reportedly, the “Aegis” system is not nearly as capable as it sounds, particularly in real war (where missiles are likely to be fired at a ship with the system in less than ideal situations).

    3. Someone has told me that the F-35C for the Navy has had a ton of fudged up tests.

  3. Chris said

    I think a lot of the problems that are occurring are because of the fact that the vehicle was based on the Swiss MOWAG Piranha IIIH 8×8. Anyways, informally chatting with a few people who have worked with the Swiss, the Piranha 8×8 was only designed with 15 tons of weight in mind. I am uncertain as to whether or not the LAV 3 had any upgrades to allow for the mass increases, some of which can go up to 25 tons. Don’t quote me on this one though – not 100% sure about it.

    Either way, the idea of using a wheeled vehicle as a combat vehicle/transport is a bad idea. It simply was never made for heavy combat.

    The Canadian LAVs also tend to have a 25mm turret on top. The American Stryker variants are less well armed. However increasingly, you’ll see LAVs with a “bird cage” of slat armor to detonate incoming RPGs. That adds more mass at the top.

  4. Chris said

    Actually there’s even more problems.

    Being unstable, I think the Stryker and likely the LAV have issues with aiming the guns on top.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: