Telegraph: "F-35 Fighter 'Hit By Software And Reliability Problems'"

Discussion in 'The Fleet Air Arm' started by soleil, Jan 25, 2014.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. f35b_2543987b.jpg

    "Britain’s new £70 million F-35 fighter is struggling with “unacceptable” software problems and is less reliable than hoped a new report has warned.

    The Pentagon’s chief weapons tester has warned the new stealth fighter being bought by the British and the US militaries is facing more delays and remains vulnerable to fires."

    F-35 fighter 'hit by software and reliability problems' - Telegraph
  2. Fighter software problems aren't new; Saab JAS39 Gripen Crash 1993 - YouTube .

    The Gripen is now an excellent lightweight fighter.

    Anyone know what
    means? If a missile's that close, the last thing you'd worry about is sparks; or is it just crap phrasing? If "strike" means "attack" rather than another word for "hit", I suppose launching your own missile and setting fire to your aeroplane could sod your sortie up.
  3. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    I'm not an aviation expert but just reading it sounds as though the fuel system isn't suppressed (which I think is why the Nimrod exploded so quickly in Helmand and why the C-130s were upgraded as an incident in Iraq) - there are systems that seal/suppress the internal fuel supply. May well be entirely wrong though.

    Odd, given the issues related to airworthiness that this isn't a feature - which makes me suspect I'm wrong.
  4. You are talking about Explosive Suppressant Foam (ESF). They fill the tanks with a jigsaw of foam blocks. Also flame arrestors, and fuel tank inerting ( removal of oxygen by replacing it with nitrogen). C130's are now my day job.

    Haddon Cave (nimrod) caused a whole world of hurt!

    Posted from the Navy Net mobile app (Android / iOS)
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  5. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    It's about the only thing I could stretch my mind to with regard to that Reuters quote. I do find it odd that F35II hasn't had that from build, in fact I find it impossible to imagine. So, I think there must be another explanation.
  6. Is it that the F35 goes like **** and is not expected to take a hit except for a missile which would render the inerting rather pointless. Weight and space will be at much more of a premium on this than a C130 or nimrod.That is just a thought not a matter of fact.
  7. There is a penalty with fuel load when fitting ESF, however that is classified!

    Posted from the Navy Net mobile app (Android / iOS)
  8. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    All about acceptable risk I guess.

    Like I always said, WAFUs don't get paid more they just get it quicker!

Share This Page